I periodically collect postings of similar subject matter together into a compound posting. There is a list of the other compound postings in the introductory posting at the top. Each of the following sections are separate from the others and are in no particular order. Some of the sections have subheadings.
This compound posting is about atoms. But the nature of atoms inevitably delves into cosmology. Since light atoms are fused into heavier ones in stars, and the matter of our Solar System was blasted out into space by a supernova, these astronomical processes are also part of a discussion of atoms.
I have been interested in atoms ever since I had this childrens' book when I was ten years old.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1) ATOMS AND LIVING THINGS
2) THE CHEMICAL-NUCLEAR-ASTRONOMICAL RELATIONSHIP
3) ELECTRON REPULSION AND BINDING ENERGY
4) THE SUPERNOVA EQUATION
5) THE INACCESSIBLE STRUCTURE OF ELECTRONS
6) THE LACK OF IMPACT FUSION
7) NUCLEAR REACTIONS IN TERMS OF INFORMATION
8) THE DANGER OF FUSION IGNITION
9) THE FIFTH OF MATTER AND SUPERNOVA
10) THE CHEMISTRY CONUNDRUM
11) PROOF OF THE BIG BANG
12) THE MYSTERY OF NEUTRINOS
13) THE MASS DEFECT AND COSMOLOGY
1) ATOMS AND LIVING THINGS
The modern science of atoms actually began with meteorology, because atoms explained how moving air behaves. But I find that the complexity, and particularly the vision, of living things gives us pointers toward the scale of atoms.
Complexity is the information within something as to how it came to be. The unit of complexity of matter is not necessarily at the level of atoms, if one arrangement is just as good as another, as in the bricks of a house. Living things are composed of the same atoms as their inanimate surroundings, but have far more complexity in the arrangements of their atoms.
I have found that a broad and general rule is that the proportional size ratio of intelligent living things to the scale of atoms is roughly equal to the cube of the complexity of that living thing. Of course almost all atoms in living things are smaller atoms, particularly carbon.
Complexity can be defined as the number of possible meaningful arrangements of some system, such as a living thing. There are secondary determinants to the size of a living thing, but the primary determinant is the size of the atoms of which the living thing is composed.
That can be expressed as follows: size of living things x number of possible species x possible variation within the species = reciprocal of the size scale of the atoms of which the living things are composed. If complexity means also potential for change, then the possible changes of aging, sickness and, injury all point toward the scale of the atoms of which arrangement all such changes are rooted, since these all represent changes that are different arrangements.
The scale of atoms is the primary determinant of the size of living things. But there are secondary determinants. The number of available atoms to build the structures of living things, in other words food, is also an important factor. If food is not in abundant supply, living things tend to compensate by constructing the same complexity with fewer atoms.
While it usually does not make sense for living things to be bigger than necessary, because it would require more food, there is the "arms race" factor involving prey and predator.
Another secondary determinant in the final size of living things is described in the posting on the meteorology and biology blog, www.markmeeklife.blogspot.com , in the posting "The Bone To Flesh Ratio". Land creatures with skeletons of bone must gradually get smaller as time goes on, such as dinosaurs to mammals, simply because the bones of dead creatures decay, so that their component atoms can return to circulation in the biosphere, far more slowly than the flesh of dead creatures does.
The minimum size of living things are the result of the scale of the atoms of which they are composed, because these are the building blocks of the complexity of the living thing. The maximum size of living things is determined by their environment. On land, trees are the living things which can continue to grow because their growth is based mostly on the carbon in the air. In the sea, whales make the best of both worlds in that they are mammals and surface to breathe air so that, unlike fish, they are not limited in size by the volume of oxygen that can be dissolved in water. Whales also have better access to the atoms in bone than creatures on land, because these atoms return to circulation in the biosphere much more quickly in the sea.
In intelligent living things, meaning excluding plants, it is the complexity of the brain that really counts, rather than that of the body. The fundamental essence of intelligent life is that it constructs a model within it if the surrounding reality. But doing this would not be of much use without a body to convey senses, respond to commands and, provide nutrients and oxygen to the brain.
The brain must be more complex than the body. Have you ever stopped to think that, if this were not so, we would be unable to recognize each other. You could look through photos of everyone in the world, and pick out persons who were close to you or that you knew well. But this can only be done by having a mental model of those people, and this would be impossible if the brain did not hold more complexity than the body.
Vision is especially related to the size scale of atoms. Mammals have much better vision than insects, simply because the eyes of mammals are vastly larger and this size provides more atoms and thus more potential complexity.
Now stop and think, if there were no such thing as atoms or other fundamental building blocks of matter then there would be no limitations on squeezing any amount of complexity in any volume of matter. This would mean that there would be no reason insects could not have vision as good as mammals. But clearly, this is not the case and the reason is the size scale of atoms. This means that atoms are the fundamental building blocks which set the limit of potential complexity.
If matter is indeed composed of atoms, then a small eye cannot hold the same complexity as a large one. But this brings us to what I will refer to as the "cube rule". The relative complexity of the eye cannot be in direct proportion to the number of atoms because the structure must be strong enough to hold together in it's environment and this means that in a large eye all parts would have to be thicker in proportion to their size, as well as wider and longer.
Ants have eyes, but not very good vision and get information mainly with their antennae. Suppose that a a human being is a million times the size of an ant, in terms of volume. If the vision of the two was equivalent, it would mean that atoms as building blocks must be either non-existent or extremely infinitesimal. The better the vision of humans, in comparison with ants the larger that atoms must be because the greater the potential complexity difference between two sizes, the larger the fundamental building blocks must be. Based on the cube rule, if human vision is a hundred times better than that of an ant then a human should be about a million times the size of an ant and that is just about what we find.
I have noticed that there must be a rule that no creature can ever directly see atoms, not even with magnification. The reason is that to see something, we must be able to construct an image of it in the eye and a model of it in the brain. This model must be constructed with atoms, because these are what we have as fundamental building blocks. The wavelengths of light that would reflect off atoms would be that which is comparable in size to those atoms. This would be impossible to focus and process by structures that were made of building blocks the same size of atoms.
Why do we see the wavelengths of light that we do? This is also ultimately related to the size scale of atoms, compared with the wavelengths of light. A lot of complexity, which must be based on the structures made of atoms, is required to sense and process the information contained in light. With too short of wavelengths, there cannot be enough complexity to process all of the information contained, because shorter wavelengths carry more information but require fine structures to sense and this fineness is limited by the size of the basic building blocks. With long wavelengths, there cannot be large enough structures within the eye because electromagnetic waves are reflected and refracted by structures similar in size to the wavelength, longer waves would also not carry as much information.
The number of colors that we can discern, from the differences in the wavelengths of light that we can see, are related to the relationship of the size scale of atoms to the wavelengths of light. Smaller atoms or shorter wavelengths mean that we would be able to discern more colors and shades.
Besides the number of shades and colors that we can see, another way that we can see how the wavelengths of light that we see must be very much longer than the size scale of atoms is the fact that an apparently perfect reflection can be seen in a pond or puddle. The water is made of atoms, but these are so small in scale relative to the wavelengths of light that they have no effect on the image and the water appears as nothing but a smooth surface.
2) 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 electrically 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, if the breaking of the bond releases more energy than it takes to break it so that the process is self-sustaining.
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 as radiation. 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 billion 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, having the least surface area per volume. 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, because remember that gravity is cumulative. 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, against the mutual repulsion of negatively-charged electrons, to form larger atoms out of smaller ones. But the new larger atom contains less internal energy than the total of the smaller atoms that were crunched together to form it. 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.
3) ELECTRON REPULSION AND BINDING ENERGY
We know that energy can never be created or destroyed, but only changed from one form to another. This brings us to a question about the nuclear binding energy which binds the like-charged protons of the nucleus together in an atom. Where did this binding energy come from? What kind of energy was it before lighter atoms were crunched together into a larger atom? If it is true that energy can never be created or destroyed, but only changed in form, then there must be an answer to this. It must have been some other type of energy before it was binding energy.
Electron repulsion is simply the mutual repulsion between negatively-charged electrons in the outer shells of adjacent atoms. Remember that like charges repel while opposite charges attract. This is what keeps matter intact, because atoms cannot merge into one another due to this. This is also why matter and antimatter mutually annihilate, antimatter has positively-charged positrons in it's orbitals instead of negatively-charged electrons so that there is no such repulsion between matter and antimatter.
My view is that radiation released by the sun and the stars is actually the orbital energy of electrons as they are crunched into protons to form neutrons. That also explains why the binding energy per nucleon actually increases as we move to heavier elements, at least up to iron.
The energy in the electron orbitals is the same as the energy of electron repulsion. It is true that some of the mass or the nucleus is actually transformed into binding energy, as we move up the binding energy curve, but it still requires energy to overcome the mutual repulsion of like-charged nuclei so that the nuclear force can take over and apply binding energy to hold the nucleus together.
But where does this ever-increasing binding energy in progressively heavier nuclei in the star, up to iron, come from? There is only a certain amount of energy in the star to be changed from one form to another and, as time goes on and lighter atoms are continuously crunched into larger ones, the total binding energy within atoms within the star just keeps increasing.
Electron repulsion resists gravity, it holds back the crunching of smaller atoms together by the gravitational mass of the star. If it can resist one of the basic forces of nature, then it must be energy. Just as we use the energy in fuel to launch a rocket or aircraft in opposition to gravity, electron repulsion is energy that resists gravity.
The binding energy that holds the nucleus of an atom together against the mutual repulsion of the like-charged protons in the nucleus is also energy. That is why it is called binding energy. In fact, the binding energy in the nucleus is the exact opposite of the electron repulsion that keeps atoms apart until it is overwhelmed by the gravitational mass of the star.
Electron repulsion uses the mutual repulsion between like charges to keep atoms apart, while the binding energy in the nucleus keeps the atom together by overcoming the mutual repulsion of the like-charged protons. The the short-range nuclear force can then take over and convert some of the mass of the nucleus into binding energy.
Can you see what I am moving toward here? The electron repulsion between atoms is the exact opposite of the binding energy that holds atoms together. As the star progresses in crunching smaller atoms into larger ones, the overall electron repulsion of all atoms in the star decreases because there is less overall atomic surface area, while the total nuclear binding energy in the star increases because as atoms get heavier the binding energy per nucleon increases according to the binding energy curve in elements up to iron and nickel.
The energy in electron repulsion must have gone somewhere, and the binding energy in the nuclei must have come from somewhere. But there is more energy than is needed to accomplish this, and the excess energy is what is released as radiation by the star.
If you guessed that it is the energy in the electron repulsion that makes material composed of smaller atoms less dense and resists the crunching of atoms together that gets transformed into the energy that overcomes the mutual repulsion of positively-charged nuclei of lighter atoms being crunched together so that the short-range nuclear force can convert some of the mass of the nucleus into the binding energy that holds the atomic nuclei together, then you are absolutely correct.
As lighter atoms are crunched together within stars, there is progressively less electron repulsion. There are fewer electrons in orbitals of atoms, but more neutrons as electrons are crunched into protons to form neutrons. There is the energy released as radiation, but yet there is more binding energy within the nuclei. It must all form an equation.
The energy that was in electron orbitals is reversed so that it can force the nuclei of light atoms close enough together so that the short-range nuclear force can take over and convert some of the mass of the nucleus into the binding energy which permanently holds the nucleus together.
I maintain here that the energy in electron repulsion gets converted into the inward energy that makes it possible for the nuclear force to convert some of the mass into binding energy as many smaller atoms are crunched together into fewer larger ones. The many smaller atoms have more total energy of electron repulsion, in their orbitals, but the fewer larger atoms have more total binding energy.
The fewer larger atoms have fewer total electrons in orbitals than the many smaller atoms. Since there is energy in the orbitals of these electrons, energy must have been released as electrons were crunched into protons to form neutrons. This is why stars shine. Neutrons are secondary particles, formed when an electron is crunched into a proton, and require the support of being within the nucleus to exist. A neutron on it's own will decay back into a proton and an electron in an average of about 15 minutes.
A uranium atom, for example, has 238 total nucleons in the nucleus but only 92 protons and electrons. This started out as 238 hydrogen atoms with one proton and one electron, meaning that 146 electrons got crunched into protons to form neutrons. Much of that former orbital energy must have gotten released as radiation.
The orbital energy of the electrons in higher orbitals would have also come from the same source as the energy which forces nuclei together. When two smaller atoms are crunched together into a larger one, there would not be enough room in the lower orbitals for all of the electrons in the new atom. Some of them would form a higher orbital shell, and the higher energy of that shell would have come from the same former energy of electron repulsion that was being converted to the inward energy that forces nuclei together.
4) THE SUPERNOVA EQUATION
The largest stars may eventually explode in a supernova. This does not happen to most stars, our own sun doesn't have enough mass to form a supernova and will simply burn out.
My definition of the difference between a nova and a supernova is that a nova is the star blasting off it's outer layers, in an effort to regain stability, while a supernova is the entire star exploding from the center. A supernova may be preceded by one or more nova and, if that fails to restore stability, may then explode altogether from the center.
A star is born when enough matter comes together in space, by it's mutual gravity, to overcome the electron repulsion that keeps atoms separate so that smaller atoms are crunched together into larger ones. One of the new larger atoms has less overall internal energy than the smaller atoms that were crunched together to form it. The excess energy is released as radiation and that is why stars shine.
The star is an equilibrium between the inward force of gravity and the outward force of the energy that is released by the nuclear fusion. As time goes on, and smaller atoms are continuously being fused into larger ones, more energy per time is being released. This is because it is larger atoms that are being fused, even though the energy released per larger atom is less. This upsets the equilibrium of the star, increasing the rate of energy being released at the center. This causes the star to swell, the sun will eventually swell into a "red giant" star, but in the largest stars it may blast off the outer layers altogether, this is known as a nova. This lowers the gravitational pressure on the center of the star, which slows down fusion and may restore stability to the star, at least for a while.
The ordinary fusion process only goes as far as iron. This causes the star to start running out of it's nuclear fuel. This slows down the fusion at the star's center and again upsets the equilibrium, this time in favor of the inward gravitational pressure. The large star contracts, rather than expands, but this acts to reignite the fusion at a faster pace, as most of the atoms have not yet fused into iron, and this causes the star to explode as a supernova and to scatter it's component matter across space.
Some of the matter from a supernova may fall back together by gravity to form a second-generation star. We know that our sun is such a second-generation star because it contains heavier elements that are beyond it's current stage in the fusion process. The sun's present fusion stage is fusing four atoms of hydrogen into one atom of helium. The sun was preceded by a much-larger star that reached the iron stage in fusion, so that it partially ran out of fuel. This is why iron is so abundant in the inner Solar System, Mercury is known as the "Iron Planet" and iron is the most common element in the earth by mass.
Elements heavier than iron require an input of energy and are formed only during the brief time that a supernova is actually taking place. The tremendous release of energy fuses atoms heavier than iron together. This is why iron, and elements lighter than it, are exponentially more common than elements heavier than iron, such as silver, gold and, uranium.
Some of these heavier elements, whose atoms were forced together by the tremendous energy released by the supernova, are less-than-stable. These heavy atoms gradually give off particles or radiation in an effort to regain stability. These emissions are known as radioactivity.
Even as the previous star was exploding in the supernova the heavier-than-iron elements that were being fused together by the energy released had time to separate into layers by mass, with heavier elements toward the center of the star. The reason that the heaviest of rare earth elements tend to be found together in mines on earth is that they were formed last and didn't have a chance to separate by gravity before the energy being released by the supernova increased and they were hurtled off into space.
Some of the matter scattered across space by the explosion, in a supernova, of the large star that preceded the sun fell back together to form the sun and planets. This means that every atom in your body was once part of a star that exploded.
My belief is that there were three nova preceding this supernova. The first blasting off of the outer layers of the previous star provided the molecules of light atoms that formed the distant Oort Cloud of comets. The second nova formed the closer Kuiper Belt of comets. The third nova, the final one preceding the supernova, formed the light molecules, such as water, methane and, ammonia that forms much of the mass of the outer planets of the Solar System.
The reason Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and, Neptune are so much larger than the inner planets is that they are in a zone where the distribution of heavier matter, from the supernova, and lighter atoms, from the third nova, intersect. The cores of these planets are heavier matter, like the earth and other inner planets, while their outer layers are lighter molecules from the third nova.
Just as the energy released during a supernova can fuse together the elements heavier than iron, which wouldn't form by the ordinary fusion process, the much-lesser energy of a nova fuses the light atoms in the outer layers of a star together into molecules, and there is energy in the molecular bonds. This is how I believe water formed. Hydrogen is diatomic, consisting of two bonded atoms with energy in the bond, when we use hydrogen as fuel we are releasing this energy that originated with a nova.
It is my conclusion that if there was only a supernova, with no preceding nova, then a solar system that formed around a second-generation star would have only solid matter, metals and rock. For gases and liquids to be present, forming atmospheres and oceans, there must be nova before the supernova. Atmospheres and oceans are formed of molecules put together from light atoms by the energy released by a nova, rather than by a supernova.
It is not known what proportion of the previous star's matter fell back together to form the present sun and Solar System, and what proportion was blasted away into space forever. A clue is in the highly-eccentric orbits of the comets. By "eccentric" I mean a highly-elongated ellipse, very far from being circular. These comets were once in orbit around the previous star, which was much larger than our sun, before the star exploded in the supernova. The comets then were in orbit around the sun, after it formed from some of the matter from the supernova after it fell back together by gravity.
An orbit contains energy, the higher the orbit the higher the orbital energy. The total orbital energy is a function of the space enclosed within the orbit and is proportional to the mass of the central body. When the previous star exploded, and some of it's matter fell back together to form the much-smaller sun, the orbital energy of the comets was suddenly reduced by the reduction in mass of the central body. This meant that their orbits had to reduce in size, but yet the information of their orbits around the previous star couldn't just be lost. So the orbits of the comets reduced in size, the amount of space enclosed in the orbit, by becoming very elongated.
This means that the greater mass of the previous star, relative to the present mass of the sun, must be approximately equal to the area of a circle, with the aphelion of the comet being one point on the circle and the center of the circle being the center of the sun, relative to the present area enclosed by the eccentric orbit of the comet.
But all of this, the proportion of the mass of the previous star that went off into space forever compared with the proportion that fell back together by gravity to form the sun and planets, must form some kind of equation.
Any chemical or nuclear process can be expressed in terms of a mathematical equation. Although this supernova, and the forming of the second-generation sun, was on a very large scale it is fairly simple and there must be some equation involved, even if it does not reveal exactly what proportion of the mass of the previous star fell back together by gravity to form the sun and planets.
There are seven basic factors that are involved:
1) The initial mass of the previous star. This mass, of course, contained internal energy according to the Mass-Energy Equivalence, where a certain amount of mass is always equivalent to a certain amount of energy.
2) The energy given off by the previous star as radiation, released by fusion during it's lifespan, before exploding in the supernova.
3) The energy released by the previous star as it exploded in the supernova, and also including any nova that came before the supernova. Some of this energy was released as radiation. Some energy propelled the mass of the star out into space. Some energy that was released went to fuse together atoms that are heavier than iron, such as silver, gold and, uranium.
4) The present mass of the sun and Solar System.
5) All of the radiant energy ever released by the sun.
6) The total orbital energy in the Solar System, including the planets and comets.
7) The Mass-Energy Equivalence of the matter from the previous star that was blasted far out into space by the supernova and didn't fall back together to form the sun and Solar System.
This process of supernova and then part of the matter falling back together to form the sun and Solar System must, like every other process in physics or chemistry, be expressible as an equation or formula. Since we are dealing with the breaking apart and forming of atoms, in fusion within stars, we have to take into account the equivalence of mass and energy. This is expressed as the well-known Mass-Energy Equivalence, where a certain amount of mass is always equivalent to a certain amount of energy. The only way to release all this energy is matter-antimatter annihilation.
The previous star was obviously much larger than the sun, since only the largest stars will explode as a supernova. So starting with 1) The initial mass of the previous star, we have to subtract some quantity that we will refer to as X to get everything to do with the present sun and Solar System, which are 4), 5) and, 6).
The only factors remaining to be subtracted from 1) The initial mass of the previous star, are 2) and 3), and the lost matter of 7).
2) The radiant energy given off by the previous star during it's lifetime.
3) and 7) The energy and mass released during the supernova of the previous star. This includes the Mass-Energy Equivalence of whatever matter went far off into space and didn't fall back together to form the sun and Solar System.
But this is obvious and still doesn't explain why the proportional difference between the sun and the previous star is as it is.
Since none of the last three factors could have had an influence on the proportional ratio of the previous star and the sun, the last three are result factors rather than determining factors, the only option remaining that makes any sense is that 2) and 3) must be equal.
There must be some equation somewhere in this, aside from 1-3 being equal to 4-7.
2) The radiant energy given off by the previous star during it's lifetime, is equal to 3) The energy released in the supernova of the previous star.
This release of energy would include any nova, blasting off the outer layers of the previous star, that took place before the star finally exploded from the center in a supernova. The previous star may have shone for hundreds of millions of years, larger stars typically don't last as long as smaller stars, but a supernova can temporarily outshine an entire galaxy.
Presuming that the previous star initially consisted of hydrogen and helium, the radiant energy emitted by the star during it's lifetime was released as those light elements were progressively fused into heavier elements. This fusion into heavier elements made the star more dense, even though some of the mass of the initial light elements was being converted to the energy that was released as radiation.
The higher density meant stronger gravitational pressure in the center of the star, and it is the gravitational pressure that drives the fusion process. This then meant a speeding up of the fusion process. This speeding up of the fusion process unbalanced the equilibrium of the star, the balance between the inward pressure of gravity and the outward force of the energy being released by fusion in the star's center.
This increased outward pressure is what caused any nova before the end of the star's life, a blasting away of the outer layers, and when this didn't slow the fusion process sufficiently to restore equilibrium, the final explosion of the star from the center in the supernova took place. This wasn't entirely the end of the star as some of the matter fell back together by it's mutual gravity to form the sun, which we call a second-generation star, and planets.
Exactly what proportion of the previous star fell back together to form the sun and planets, but not including the comets and the light molecular mass of the outer planets because these resulted from nova which preceded the supernova, is an inverse function of the energy released in the supernova. The greater the energy released the more mass would be blasted further away so that it wouldn't fall back together by it's own gravity after the supernova.
Since the previous star was much more massive than the sun something must explain why some of it's mass, thrown out into space by the supernova, fell back together to form the sun and Solar System while some didn't. Whatever explains it must be a major feature of the supernova and the logical explanation is that the energy released by the supernova would have been enough to blast all of the matter outward, so that none of it would fall back together again, but much of it was released as radiation and some of it went into fusing atoms together into elements heavier than iron. It was the radiation away of the energy released by fusion during the lifespan of the star that led to it's eventual explosion that released more energy, including the nova preceding the star, so it is only logical that the two releases of energy should be equivalent.
It was the increase in density of the star that ultimately brought about the supernova. The star emitted radiation during it's lifetime as the increase in density progressed. Remember that when smaller atoms are crunched together by gravity into larger ones the new larger atom contains less internal energy, the Mass-Energy Equivalence described above, than the smaller atoms that were crunched together to form it. The excess energy is released as radiation and this is why stars shine.
Since there was no significant input or loss of energy from anywhere else, and since we know that all physical processes like this are governed by an equation or formula, and since the first process caused the second process we can safely presume that the emission of radiation during the star's lifetime and the emission of energy during the nova and supernova must be equal. There must be a halfway point in the release of energy from the beginning of the star to the end of the supernova, and this is the logical place for it.
The best way to measure this mass is, as stated above, the difference between the area enclosed by the typical elongated orbit of a comet relative to the much-larger area that would be enclosed if the orbit were circular.
5) THE INACCESSIBLE STRUCTURE OF ELECTRONS
As far as we can tell electrons are mere point particles of negative charge with no internal structure that we can discern. We can see that the protons and neutrons in the nucleus of the atom are composed of quarks, but there is apparently no such internal structure for electrons. But let's stop and consider this today.
How do we measure and look into things? We can receive electromagnetic waves, such as light, and can sense magnetism and electrical forces as well. But electromagnetism is the only way that we can receive information about the world around us.
Not only is electromagnetism the only way that we can receive information about the world around us but the only way we can receive that electromagnetism is by it's effect on electrons. The photoelectric effect, for example, that enables us to see results when the energy in electromagnetic radiation can knock an outer electron in an atom out of it's orbital.
The electrons in the outer orbitals have the highest energy and additional energy from the radiation may be enough to knock it out of the atom altogether. This causes a flow of electrons that the nerves in our eyes can sense or we can measure with electronic equipment.
Because we can only see by receiving electromagnetic waves, that puts certain limits on our vision. An optical microscope is limited by the wavelengths of light to a magnification of about 1400 x. Any magnification beyond this is impossible because the wavelengths of light that we see are too long to convey the necessary information. We can get around this limitation by using an electron microscope, which uses a beam of electrons instead of visible light.
Since we do not actually see an object, but only the light emitted or reflected by the object, that brings about the phenomenon of optical illusions. That is another factor in our vision that there may be conditions in which the electromagnetic waves that our eyes receive do not accurately convey what we are looking at.
The classic optical illusion is a rainbow. When the sun is at our back and there are droplets of water in the air up ahead, if light is refracted twice within the droplets so that it comes back to us it will break white light down into it's component colors. Since shorter wavelengths are refracted more than longer ones the colors are separated.
The optical illusion that we see the most often is the blue sky. There is no blue wall as it appears. Objects reflect the wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation that are about the same as their wavelength. The fine particles of dust that are small enough to remain airborne in the atmosphere are of a scale that reflects blue light, the shortest wavelength of light. The blue light is reflected all around and that is why the sky appears blue.
At evening, when the sun is low in the sky, it's light comes at us through a greater depth of atmosphere. The result of this is that the blue light is scattered away altogether so that only the light at the opposite end of the scale of visible light remains. This is red light and is why sunsets appear as red. If we look at the boundary region between night and day from out in space, we can see a line of blue light that was scattered away.
During a major forest fire the sky may appear as orange or yellow, instead of blue. That is because the air is temporarily full of larger particles of dust, which reflect longer wavelengths of light.
But all of this is an optical illusion because we are seeing light that has been refracted by the atmosphere so that it does not represent a physical object that it has been reflected or emitted by. The fact that light can be refracted, as well as reflected or emitted, is generally what brings about optical illusions.
Another optical illusion of refraction is the apparent shimmering water mirage that is sometimes seen on the road up ahead on a hot day. But when we arrive at where the water seems to be, we find that it has moved further back so that we never actually reach it. That is caused by the light being refracted by heated air rising from the road.
The interface between water and air also brings an optical illusion. If you look at something below the surface of the water, it is not exactly where it seems to be because water and air have different indexes of refraction. You can see this by how a pole that you hold and put into the water seems to bend where the air meets the water.
So if we are dependent on electromagnetism for information about the world around us, and it's effect on electrons is the only way that we can receive this electromagnetism, isn't it possible that there might be other "illusions" or limitations in the information that we receive?
What about electrons themselves? We are absolutely dependent on electrons, and the fact that they can be made to flow as an electric current by being knocked out of electron orbitals, to receive information. If the nature of light, as electromagnetic waves, brings limitations due to wavelength and optical illusions, then what about the nature of electrons?
Have we ever thought about how the fact that we can only receive information by way of electrons might affect our understanding of the electrons themselves?
We perceive electrons as simply negatively-charged points with no discernible internal structure at all. But we use electrons as "bits" in receiving and processing information. This information is brought to us by whole electrons and never by anything smaller than an electron. Electrons themselves are the smallest "bits" in the receiving and processing of information.
So how can electrons be anything but simply a negatively-charged point? By using whole electrons as the smallest "bits" or information we are limited to determining that an electron is there, but cannot see what it might be made of or it's internal structure. This is not true of protons or neutrons, in which we can discern an internal structure, but only of electrons.
It is reminiscent of trying to get an optical microscope to magnify something more than about 1400 x. Electromagnetic waves are reflected by objects that are about the same as their wavelength and this means that we cannot directly see objects smaller than this wavelength. But we can get around this, seeing at least an image of an object smaller than this, by using an electron microscope that shoots a beam of electrons at an object.
But we cannot do this if we want to further observe electrons themselves. Electrons are the only "bits" that we have to receive and process information. This means that the only way we can discern whatever internal structure the electron might have is to use a "bit" of information that is smaller than the electrons themselves but will somehow interact with them and that is something that, at this point, we do not have.
We can never learn everything about our world because we are limited by the process that we use to receive information.
6) THE LACK OF IMPACT FUSION
I would like to show how things that do not happen illustrates how universe works, just as does things that do happen. For example, there is a limited area in center of a star where nuclear fusion takes place. Fusion does not take place throughout the entire star. This is shown by the fact that impact fusion does not take place, even though it should be theoretically possible.
Just a quick review of how a star operates. A star is born when a vast amount of matter, mostly gas and dust, gathers together in space by it's mutual gravity. If there is enough matter, the tremendous gravitational force at the center of the mass becomes enough to overcome the electron repulsion that keeps atoms from merging together because the electrons in the orbitals of both atoms are negatively-charged and like charges repel, just as opposite charges attract. This crunches smaller atoms together into larger ones, in the process known as fusion. When this happens, there is less total energy in the new large atom than there was in the smaller ones, and this energy is released as heat and other radiation so that the star shines. Electron repulsion must be overcome to attain fusion and it is the reversed energy of the orbitals that goes into binding energy.
But no example of such impact fusion has ever been seen. There was somewhat of a scientific fad in 1989, known as Cold Fusion, in which atoms could be made to fuse together at room temperature. Fusion of limited numbers of atoms can be done today by lasers, although we are nowhere near making it into a large-scale source of energy.
So why couldn’t high- velocity impacting meteors bring about fusion? Impact fission takes place. Nuclear fission, used in reactors and atomic bombs, is the opposite of fusion. Fission is initiated by a high-speed that neutron splits the nucleus into two smaller atoms, and releases several leftover neutrons at high speed, which split more nuclei, and so on, thus initiating what is known as a chain reaction. Nuclear fission is only known to take place with two atoms, Plutonium which is a synthetic element and the 235 isotope of uranium. The number 235 refers to the total number of nucleons, protons and neutrons, in the nucleus. Ordinary uranium has 238 total nucleons, and cannot undergo fission because the three extra neutrons hold the nucleus together more tightly.
Cosmic ray spallation is a natural form of nuclear fission in which nuclei in space are split into smaller atoms by cosmic rays. It is believed that some of the lighter elements, such as lithium and beryllium, originate mostly from cosmic rays breaking apart larger atoms. Cosmic rays is actually a misnomer, since they are particles and not radiation.
I think it is safe to conclude that if a particle strikes a nucleus with enough energy, it will result in the splitting of the nucleus by fission, as with cosmic ray spallation. But if one atom strikes another with enough energy, it will result in the two atoms merging as fusion. This is what happens in the centers of stars. If impact fusion were to take place, outside of stars, the velocity would likely have to be approaching the speed of light, depending on the size of atom and electron repulsion to be overcome.
But where would the energy come from to drive an atom to undergo fusion if it collided with another atom, outside of a star? It would naturally take the energy released by fusion to drive an object with the force required to bring about fusion. Remember that after a large star has "cooked" up heavier atoms by fusing lighter ones together, it blasts these atoms out across space when the star explodes in a supernova. Thus, it is actually the energy of fusion that scatters matter out across space. The matter may exist as meteors or dust, and then fall back together by mutual gravity to form planets or a second-generation star.
But this shows how a star operates, only a fraction of the matter that is blasted into space by a supernova was actually close enough to the center of the star to be undergoing fusion at any given time. So the force of the supernova explosion that is imparted to the matter of the entire star thrown out across space must be much less than required to bring about fusion if this matter should undergo a collision. The fact that much of the scattered mass can fall back together by gravity, to form planets or a second-generation star, shows how limited the kinetic energy that was imparted to it by the supernova explosion is in comparison with the energy that would be required to bring about impact fusion by the force of collision.
In fact, we can safely state that atoms probably never collide with other atoms at a velocity great enough to bring about fusion, outside of a star, even though it seems to be theoretically possible.
But this can be considered as the result of the size of the central “furnace” area of star, where nuclear fusion actually takes place, in comparison with total volume of the entire star. If the energy imparted to moving matter, when scattered outward across space by the supernova explosion of the star, is from the fusion at the center of the star, and it logically requires propulsion by fusion to drive matter with enough energy to undergo fusion upon impact with other matter, since fusion is the greatest known source of energy, and the zone in which fusion actually takes place in the center of the star is very limited in comparison with the total volume and mass of the star, then the matter thrown out across space by the supernova explosion of the star should propel the matter with an energy level that is far less than that which would be required to produce impact fusion. That is why we do not see impact fusion taking place anywhere, even though it does sound theoretically possible.
This scenario also shows how the total mass of star multiplies it’s kinetic energy, of the inward gravitational attraction, to produce fusion at the center. There is not enough pressure to bring about fusion in the outer reaches of the star, but all of the mass is pressing together at the center so it does bring about fusion there.
Similarly, we can see how the way things work shows how atoms must be mostly empty space.
Solar energy evaporates water molecules. Molecules were bound by hydrogen bonding, which involves the fundamental electric charges. This shows that atoms must be mostly empty space. If atoms were not mostly empty space, if the molecules were pure concentrated charges it would be impossible for solar energy, which itself originates from the basic rules of the electric charges itself. to pull molecules bound by the electric charges apart. Water could only evaporate if atoms were mostly empty space.
7) NUCLEAR REACTIONS IN TERMS OF INFORMATION
The first thing that is confusing about nuclear science is that there are two basic major reactions, fission and fusion. Fission means "to split the atom" and fusion means to fuse atoms together. The two are thus opposite processes. But what doesn't seem to make sense is that if one process releases energy then shouldn't the opposite process either absorb energy, or at least not release energy? That is usually the way it works in chemistry. But yet both of these nuclear processes release energy, actually tremendous amounts of energy.
Fusion, the fusing together of small atoms into larger ones usually by the tremendous heat and pressure in the centers of stars, actually does require an input of energy, but only for elements that are heavier than iron. These heavier elements are formed only during the brief time that the star is actually exploding as a supernova, and the energy released makes the required fusion possible. That is why iron and elements lighter than it are exponentially more common than elements that are heavier than iron. Many heavier elements, their component smaller atoms having been forced together by the energy of the supernova, are less-than-stable. They gradually emit particles or radiation in the seeking of a more stable state. These emissions are known as radioactivity.
At the time of this writing, all nuclear power that we use comes from fission of uranium. We can get smaller atoms to fuse together by lasers, which is fusion, but no one has yet succeeded in getting net energy from the fusion process. But so many people are trying.
In the centers of stars, smaller atoms starting with hydrogen are fused together into ever-larger and heavier atoms. Two prominent fusion processes, depending on the size of the star, are the Triple Alpha Process and the Proton-Proton Process. Sometimes light atoms, which are usually common, are broken back down by natural fission process, cosmic ray spallation, and this is why light elements such as lithium and beryllium are relatively rare.
INFORMATION AND ENERGY IS REALLY THE SAME THING
We have seen, in my information theory, that energy and information is really the same thing. We cannot add information to anything without applying energy to it, and we cannot apply energy to anything without adding information to it. Another way that we can see the two as really being the same thing is in technology. We can make our lives physically easier by using technology, but only at the expense of making them more complex. We can never, on a large scale, make life both physically easier and also less complex.
We can see that both of these opposite nuclear processes release energy, which is somewhat confusing. But what happens if we express the nuclear reactions as information, instead of as energy, since energy and information is really the same thing?
THE TWO SETS OF INFORMATION IN ATOMS
There are two sets of information within atoms. The first is the electrical repulsion relationship between the protons in the nucleus. There has to be neutrally-charged neutrons to hold the protons together, against their mutual repulsion, so that the electrical relationships between the protons vary due to the distance between them. Each proton has this electrical relationship with every other proton in the nucleus. These relationships are information.
Let's call this the Inter-Proton Relationships Information.
The second set of information in the atom is the outer surface area of the atom itself, that of the outermost electron orbital. Distance, and thus surface area, is information and energy. The size of an atom is typically about ten thousand times that of it's nucleus.
The outermost electrons, which form the surface area of the atom, have the highest orbital energy of all the electrons in the atom. We can see how higher electron orbitals have higher energy than lower ones in that radiation can sometimes shift an electron to a higher orbital, and more radiation is released when the electron drops back down. This is the principle behind fluorescence and phosphorescence. One way to see how energy, which is also information, changes the surface area is that the energy in wind increases the surface area of water by creating waves.
Let's call this the Surface Area Information.
Simple arithmetic tells us that, when an atom is split in two by fission, the total number of protons will remain the same but the Inter-Proton Relationships will decrease. If a nucleus has 12 protons, and each has the electrical relationship with all of the others, then there are 12 x 11 = 132 interrelationships. But if we fission it into two nuclei, each with 6 protons, then there are only 6 x 5 + 6 x 5 = 60 interrelationships.
In practical terms, since heavier elements tend to have more neutrons per protons in the nucleus, this also means that several neutrons will be released. In fission, a nucleus is split initially by a high-speed neutron, and the released neutrons go onto split other nuclei. This perpetuates the process and is what is called a chain reaction, at least until enough energy is released to blast the mass of material apart.
This is a drastic decrease in the number of Inter-Proton Relationships, which is information and thus energy that must be released. But when one atom is split in two in such a way, something else is also happening. The other set of information in the atom, the Surface Area Information, is increasing. This is because the two new smaller atoms have a greater overall surface area than the original larger atom. Surface area is also information, and thus energy.
In real terms, a 235 isotope of Uranium is typically split in such a way into an atom of krypton and barium.
But if we fuse atoms together, in the centers of stars, the opposite to this process occurs. The total surface area decreases but the number of Inter-Proton Relationships increases.
THE TWO SETS OF INFORMATION MUST BE EQUAL
The essence of what I have realized is that, in any ordinary atom with equal numbers of protons and electrons, these two sets of information, the Inter-Proton Relationships Information and the Surface Area Information, must be equal in terms of information.
This gives us a valuable bridge to understanding information and how it is the same thing as energy. There is no reason for the two sets of information to be not equal. The two electric charges, the positive of the protons and negative of the electrons, are opposite but equal. Having them equal means that we have two different kinds of information that we know much hold equal information simply because it is the Lowest Information Point. An equality is less information than an inequality.
The protons and electrons attract each other, because they have opposite electric charges, but it does not operate in quite the same way as a gravitational attraction. Electron orbitals in atoms are not free-ranging, like gravity, but are arranged in shells and sub-shells. Gravity is solely an attractive force but electrical repulsion is also factor in atoms as electrons in adjacent shells repel each other by like-charge repulsion.
THE ENERGY SURFACE AREA
This equivalence of the two information sets readily explains why the two opposite processes both release energy and can also give us a way to explain, in terms of information, exactly what is happening. But there is a factor that we have to take into account as to how it operates differently from gravity.
With objects in orbit around the earth, for example, the higher the orbit the higher orbital energy. If a satellite is given three times the orbital energy that is has, it will then orbit at 9x the distance but will move at only 1 / 3 the speed. This is because gravity, like electric charge attraction or repulsion, operates by the Inverse Square Law.
But inside the atom, the electrons in orbitals operate differently. As we move to the right across a row on the Periodic Table of the Elements, to successively heavier elements but with the same number of electron shells, each successive element has one more proton and one more electron (unless it is an ion) then the one before it. But instead of getting larger, with a higher surface area, as it would be with gravity, the atom contracts due to the increase in opposite charges pulling the electrons to the nucleus.
But since this means higher energy, and thus more information, we take not the literal surface area of the atom but what I will call the "Energy Surface Area". What we do to calculate the Energy Surface Area of the atom, which we know must be equal to the Inter-Proton Relationships Information, is to take the reciprocal of the difference between the radius or surface area of the given atom, subtract it from the radius or surface area of the atom in column 1 of that row on the Periodic Table, and then add it to the radius or surface area of the element in column 1 of that row.
Here is a periodic table, although it only has the symbols but not the names of the elements. A row is right-to-left, a column is up and down.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table#/media/File:Simple_Periodic_Table_Chart-en.svg
Take, for example, the top row of the Periodic Table. There are only two elements in this row, the two lightest elements of hydrogen and helium with 1 and 2 protons each. The Wikipedia article, "Atomic Radius", under "Calculated Atomic Radii", states that a hydrogen atom has a radius of 53 picometers and a helium atom 31 picometers. Radius is proportional to surface area so that means that a hydrogen atom is considerably larger, although not heavier, than a helium atom.
But the helium atom must contain more information because it has 2 protons, while each hydrogen atom only has 1. The reason that the helium atom is smaller is the additional opposite charge pull of it's two electrons toward the two protons in the nucleus. So that we do is take the reciprocal of the relative size of the helium atom to the hydrogen atom.
31 is .5849 of 53. The reciprocal of .5849 is 1.71. 53, the radius of the hydrogen atom, x 1.71 = 90.6.
This is thus the Energy Surface Area of a helium atom, which is directly proportional to it's Energy Radius, even though it's actual radius is only 31 picometers.
WHY OPPOSITE NUCLEAR PROCESSES BOTH RELEASE ENERGY
The reason that these two opposite nuclear processes both release energy is the simple number of atoms. The split by fission uranium or plutonium atom only splits into two secondary atoms. But the fusion of a helium atom from hydrogen involves four hydrogen atoms being crunched into only one helium atom.
There is more information, and thus energy in the Inter-Proton Relationship of the helium atom than there is in the four hydrogen atoms with only one proton each, but the Energy Surface Area of the new helium atom is so much less than that of the four original hydrogen atoms, that the excess energy is released. That is why the sun shines since the sun's stage in the fusion process is now crunching four hydrogen atoms into one helium atom.
But in either nuclear process, the results are uneven and that is why energy has to be released. The reason that the process is uneven is the neutrons that are necessary to hold together the protons in the nucleus but do not participate in the Inter-Proton Relationships Information because they have no electric charge.
Heavier elements must have progressively more neutrons per proton in the nucleus. Neutrons are readily formed during fusion by crunching an electron into a proton. This is known as K-capture and results in the neutron with it's neutral electric charge.
In the fusion of four hydrogen atoms into one helium atom, there is the increase in Inter-Proton Relationship Information but the decrease in Energy Surface Area is so much greater that a lot of energy is released, and that is why the sun shines.
Obviously, large atoms tend to undergo fission while small atoms tend to undergo fusion into larger atoms. In fission, the splitting of a large atom such as uranium, there is an increase in the Energy Surface Area, as there is now two atoms rather than one, but this increase is less than the decrease of the Inter-Proton Relationships in the nucleus, as it is split in two.
This is why fission also releases energy, even though it is the opposite process of fusion. The release of energy by fusion tends to be much greater because so many protons become neutrons, by having an electron crunched into them, and are thus eliminated from the collective Inter-Proton Relationship Information, which does not involve neutrons because they have no electric charge.
WHY THE ORDINARY FUSION PROCESS ONLY GOES AS FAR AS IRON
This model of seeing nuclear reactions in terms of information, rather than energy, and realizing that the two sets of information in atoms must be equal because that is the Lowest Information Point, also explains why the ordinary fusion process only goes as far as iron and why the input of energy from a supernova is the only way that heavier elements can be formed.
The total number of Inter-Proton Relationships decreases as lighter atoms are crunched by the successive fusion process into ever-heavier elements. This is simply because heavier elements must have more neutrons per proton in the nucleus. Protons must have electrons crunched into them to form neutrons, known as K-capture, and are thus eliminated from the Inter-Proton Relationship Information. But due to the increasing number of electrons that each electron shell can accommodate, as we move outward from the nucleus, the Energy Surface Area of atoms does not increase as fast as the Inter-Proton Relationship decreases.
The point where the two cross is iron.
The last element that can thus be formed by the ordinary fusion process, which releases energy and is known as the S-process for "slow" is iron. Elements much heavier than this require the input of energy from a supernova explosion, which is known as the R-process for "rapid".
Making use of this principle that energy and information is really the same thing, and seeing the two opposite reactions as information rather than as energy, shows not only why both release energy but why the ordinary fusion process only goes as far as iron.
Finally you may notice that this concept of the information of the surface area of atoms being interchangeable with that of the inter-proton relationships is a different way of expressing what we saw in section 3) ELECTRON REPULSION AND BINDING ENERGY. Electron repulsion is the same thing as surface area and nuclear binding energy is the same thing as inter-proton relationships.
8) THE DANGER OF FUSION IGNITION
Progress toward developing nuclear fusion into a practical source of energy was in the news again recently. Present nuclear power comes from fission, splitting the atoms of a certain isotope of uranium. But nuclear power, as we have it now, had a downside. It creates wastes that will remain dangerously radioactive for centuries, and it is vulnerable to meltdowns and other accidents. It also requires the scarce and expensive 235 isotope of uranium or man-made plutonium for fuel.
The highest-profile nuclear disasters have been Three Mile Island, in Pennsylvania, Chernobyl, in Ukraine, and Fukushima, in Japan. The Fukushima disaster was caused by a tsunami. "The China Syndrome" was a 1979 movie about the meltdown of a nuclear reactor. The movie was so-called because the super-hot reactor core might burn it's way right through the earth and emerge in China.
Getting nuclear power from fusion, rather than this messy fission process, will supposedly do away with all that. Fusion means combining atoms together, rather than splitting them apart, and is the process that takes place in stars including the sun. Both processes release energy, fusion far more, and any material can theoretically be used in the fusion process. The fusion process produces no dangerous radioactive wastes.
Part of the problem with nuclear energy is that it's early proponents made too many promises. Energy would be so inexpensive that we wouldn't even bother metering it. When that never became reality it made nuclear power look like somewhat of a failure, even though it really isn't.
But here we go again with the development of fusion. Pretty soon we will live in a fusion wonderland. All of the energy that we could possibly need will be produced cleanly and efficiently. Along with electric vehicles this will save the environment, and we will all live happily ever after.
The trouble is that we will be dealing with temperatures and energies that we have never dealt with before. That is the great challenge of fusion, how to contain the process. We are replicating the process that goes on in the center of the sun and no material on earth can withstand it. Before combining into larger atoms the original atoms first come apart into a state of matter called plasma. The approach is to suspend the process in a magnetic field. The most common device for accomplishing this is called a Tokamak.
When the first nuclear bomb was detonated, in New Mexico in 1945, no one knew exactly what was going to happen simply because there had never been a known nuclear explosion on earth before. Some people were worried that it might cause the atmosphere to ignite. But the test went as planned and nothing of the kind happened.
But today we keep reading reports that we are getting closer to making nuclear fusion, as opposed to fission, into a practical source of energy, and I think we should take another look at this concern.
Nuclear fusion is what forms all elements, other than the hydrogen and helium and traces of lithium that formed in the Big Bang. Atoms are usually kept separate from one another because the negative electric charges of their outermost electrons mutually repel. But when enough matter is brought together by it's common gravity the pressure at the center of the mass is enough to overcome this mutual repulsion and crunch smaller atoms together into larger ones.
All mass contains a certain amount of internal energy, known as the Mass-Energy Equivalence. But when atoms are crunched together like this the new larger atom contains less internal energy than the smaller atoms that formed it. This excess energy is released as radiation. The volume of mass that has enough force, by it's mutual gravity, to crunch smaller atoms into larger ones is known as a star, and the release of the excess energy is why stars shine. The energy released adds to the heat inside the star and it is this tremendous heat and pressure that continues the fusion process. Our sun is presently at the stage of fusing four hydrogen atoms into one helium atom, but it contains heavier elements because it is a second-generation star.
Fusion is the crunching of small atoms into larger ones, usually by the tremendous heat and pressure in the centers of stars. The opposite process is fission, the splitting of large atoms usually by high-speed neutrons. Both processes release energy, but fusion releases far more energy per mass.
All of the nuclear energy that we use at the present time is from fission, the splitting of either the 235 isotope of uranium or plutonium. Efforts have been going on for a long time to get energy from fusion. We can fuse smaller atoms together into larger ones, one way is by using lasers, but, as of this writing, no one has yet made fusion into a net source of energy, meaning that we get more energy out of the process than we put into it. However the latest news is that we are making definite progress in that direction.
Fusion is what makes so-called "thermonuclear" weapons so much more powerful than an ordinary atomic bomb. A thermonuclear weapon is also known as a hydrogen bomb. In such a bomb an ordinary atomic bomb acts as a mere detonator, bringing about the heat and pressure needed to start the fusion process.
The easiest atoms to fuse, those requiring the least energy, is the hydrogen isotope know as deuterium. Ordinary hydrogen is the simplest and lightest atom. An ordinary hydrogen atom is just one electron in orbit around one proton. But there is an isotope of hydrogen, deuterium, which has a neutron, as well as the proton, in the nucleus.
When atoms are fused together heavier atoms typically have a higher neutron-to-proton ratio in the nucleus. A neutron is formed by crunching an electron into a proton, the process known as K-capture. Deuterium is the easiest to fuse because, unlike ordinary hydrogen, it has a neutron already there.
A molecule of water is two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen, the familiar H2O. If the hydrogen atoms are deuterium, with the neutron in the nucleus, it is about 10% heavier than ordinary water, and known as "heavy water". Heavy water is useful in nuclear processes because, as a moderator it won't absorb neutrons because it's hydrogen atoms already have neutrons, and, as fusion material because it's hydrogen atoms have neutrons already there.
Within a thermonuclear weapon, or hydrogen bomb, an ordinary atomic bomb, based on the fission (splitting) by high-speed neutrons of either plutonium or the 235 isotope of uranium, acts as the mere detonator to provide the heat and pressure to get the fusion process going, which may use heavy water as a fusion material. In a typical design the extremely high-energy X-rays from the initial explosion will be enclosed by a radiation case so that they will bring about the fusion in the split second before the entire bomb is blasted apart. The radiation case can itself be made of fissile material, uranium, to add to the explosive yield.
With that background let's go back to the concern, in 1945, that the first nuclear test might cause the atmosphere to ignite.
Most of the air around us consists of nitrogen and oxygen. The atoms of nitrogen and oxygen are diatomic, meaning usually two atoms of nitrogen together as well as two atoms of oxygen. If such a diatomic molecule of oxygen has a carbon atom attached it forms carbon dioxide. There is also water vapor in the air. Air is thus a mixture, rather than a chemical compound, there is no such thing as a molecule of air.
(Note-My theory is that it is these diatomic molecules of nitrogen and oxygen in the air that result in circular storms, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, cyclones and. typhoons. If the molecules spin, and the spin of the long axis gets coordinated with other molecules, the result will be a circular storm. Of the air just consisted of single atoms there would be no circular storms. The same principle applies to water molecules linking by hydrogen bonding. If not for this there would be no eddies or whirlpools in water).
Here is the danger of atmospheric ignition. Now that we are reportedly getting closer to making nuclear fusion a practical source of energy, which involves tremendously high temperatures and energies, what if we reached a point where there was so much energy in such a confined space that it caused the diatomic molecules of oxygen and nitrogen in the air to start fusing into a single atom?
If we fused two atoms of nitrogen together we would get an atom of silicon. If we fused two atoms of oxygen together we would get an atom of sulfur. But remember the reason stars shine. After fusion the new larger atom contains less internal energy than the atoms that were crunched together to form it. That energy must be released. What if that energy caused two more oxygen or nitrogen atoms to fuse, and that excess energy was released, and the process continued?
The atmosphere would literally ignite.
If an atomic bomb is detonated on sand, the tremendous heat and pressure may fuse the sand into glass. But that is just chemical fusion, combining atoms into molecules without affecting the nucleus of the atom. Nuclear fusion, as takes place in stars, is actually combining atoms to make completely different atoms.
Ordinary ignition, such as burning fuel, is just chemical ignition. Molecular bonds between atoms contain energy, and breaking the bonds releases that energy. If the molecular bonds in a material release more energy than it takes to break the bonds, that material will burn. What I am referring to here is a similar concept, but the far greater energy being both released and required by nuclear fusion.
It is not so much the actual amount of energy being released, a vast amount of energy is released already by nuclear tests and reactors and even by lightning, it is rather energy density, confining the energy to a very limited area as does the radiation case in a thermonuclear weapon.
I consider this as the fusion version of a reactor meltdown but, unless it could be stopped, would destroy life on earth. I am not saying that this is going to happen, just that we should give it some thought. It doesn't just apply to the air, but also to the earth and the water of the sea. It wouldn't go any further than iron, because the ordinary fusion process only goes as far as iron, but fusion ignition could theoretically turn everything on earth into iron.
9) THE FIFTH OF MATTER AND SUPERNOVA
THE FIFTH OF MATTER AND NUCLEAR FISSION
I went over a news article involving nuclear weapons negotiations with Iran when something caught my attention. ( New York Times Sept 8 2015 )
In a nuclear reaction, what is known as a chain reaction takes place. A high-velocity neutron strikes the nucleus of an atom and splits it. Two smaller atoms result but the nuclear binding energy of the two new nuclei is less than that of the one large atom. This energy is released and this is where the energy of a nuclear reaction comes from.
The two new atoms have fewer overall neutrons than the original large atom. This is because the number of neutrons per proton must increase as we move to heavier atoms. These neutrons are released, to continue at high speeds and split more nuclei so that the chain reaction continues.
Only two elements are suitable for such a fission reaction. These are plutonium and the 235 isotope of uranium. Plutonium is an entirely man-made element formed by getting uranium to absorb neutrons, creating an unstable nucleus so that a neutron transforms itself into a proton by emitting an electron, thus forming a new element. In other elements, and the usual 238 isotope of uranium, there are too many neutrons which hold the nucleus together too tightly for it to be split by a neutron.
The number 238 or 235 refers to the total number of nucleons in the nucleus, protons and neutrons. The number of neutrons emitted per fission of a nucleus varies, for uranium-235 it averages about 2.5 and for plutonium it averages about 3. These neutrons then fly off at high speeds to each split another nucleus and continue the chain reaction.
But the geometry of the mass of plutonium of uranium-235 is also a factor. The nucleus is very small in relation to the total size of the atom. The vast majority of an atom is empty space. The often used model is of a strawberry in the middle of a playing field in a sports arena, where the strawberry represents the nucleus and the arena is the orbitals of the electrons in the atom.
A neutron is so-named because it has an overall neutral electric charge, meaning that it is not affected by the negative charges of the electrons and the positive charge of the nucleus in an atom. Since the space within the electron orbitals are so vast compared with that of the nucleus, the neutron nearly always misses the nucleus and passes right through the atom. Splitting atoms and continuing the chain reaction depends on neutrons eventually hitting a nucleus before reaching the edge of the fissile material.
This means that, if the mass of plutonium or uranium-235 has too few atoms, too many neutrons will leave the mass altogether before striking a nucleus, and the chain reaction will cease. The mass must be of at least a certain size because one of the high-speed neutrons may possibly pass through millions of atoms before it strikes a nucleus. That certain minimum size needed to keep a chain reaction going, although there is always an element of chance involved, is known as the "critical mass".
The mass is also shaped in the form of a sphere because it has the lowest surface area per volume over which the neutron could escape before striking a nucleus.
The critical mass is necessary due to geometry and the ratio of the scale of the entire atom to the nucleus. But the energy released from each fission of an atom is a different factor altogether. When a nuclear chain reaction begins, the energy being released will blast the mass apart well before all of the atoms in it have undergone fission. This, of course, will halt the chain reaction even though it creates the explosion.
The figure given in the article that I mentioned was 1 / 5. In the first nuclear test, which used plutonium, in New Mexico, it was determined that only about 1 / 5 of the atoms in the mass had actually undergone fission before it blasted itself apart and halted the chain reaction.
But why was it 1 / 5? That one-fifth is information, and information must come from somewhere. The fact that the figure was 1 / 5 must tell us something about nuclear physics or the nature of matter.
A mass of a metallic element is held together by what are known as "delocalized" electrons. This means that, rather than having all electrons in orbitals around their home atoms, as is usually the case with non-metals except for the covalent bonds of carbon compounds in which two atoms may share outer electrons, metal atoms share their outer electrons among a vast number of atoms. Most bonds between atoms of non-metals are ionic, in which one atom loses an electron to another so that they are bound by the fact that one has a net negative, and the other a net positive, charge.
This means that the entire metal mass is held together by the opposite charge attraction between it's negatively-charged electrons in orbitals around atoms and the positively-charged nuclei of those atoms.
When an atom of plutonium of the 235 isotope of uranium is split by a neutron during the fusion process, it releases only a few percent of the total binding energy between like-charged protons in the nucleus. Two smaller atoms are formed by the split, typically krypton and barium, but the nuclei of these two atoms has less total binding energy and also a few fewer neutrons than the original uranium or plutonium atom, and that is the energy and neutrons that get released as it is split.
To release all of the energy within the atom, including the Mass-Energy Equivalence energy, we would have to react equal amounts of matter and antimatter together. Antimatter is not much different from our familiar matter, except that the electric charges are reversed so that positively-charged positrons replace electrons in orbitals around a negatively-charged nucleus.
To understand why the critical mass of metal blasts apart, halting the chain reaction, after one-fifth of it's atoms have been split by the fission process, imagine the entire mass as one large atom. This is how it behaves since it is held together by electrons in orbitals around vast numbers of atoms rather than only one or two atoms. A section of metal over which the atoms share their outer electrons is referred to as a crystal.
The reason that the critical mass of metal blasts itself apart after 1 / 5 of the atoms have been split is explained in simple terms by my cosmology theory, "The Theory Of Stationary Space", in the compound posting on this blog by that name, specifically section 5).
First remember from the theory of how information works, "The Theory Of Complexity". The complexity of a number is defined as the value of the denominator when the number is expressed as a fraction or a ratio. That 1 / 5 is information which must come from somewhere and it involves a complexity of fifths.
In the cosmology theory everything, both matter and space, are composed of infinitesimal negative and positive electric charges. Space is defined as a perfectly alternating pattern of negative and positive charges in multiple dimensions. Matter is defined as a concentration of like charges, held together against the mutual repulsion of like charges by energy. Energy is thus equal to mass and this is what we refer to as the Mass-Energy Equivalence. This is also where Einstein's famous formula for the conversion of mass and energy comes from, E = MC squared.
Section 5) of the cosmology theory stipulates that, within matter, actually only two out of every five interfaces between adjacent electric charges are between like charges. The other three out of five are between opposite charges. But the interfaces between like charges hold three times as much energy as those between opposite charges.
This factor of three explains where the information for the operation of quarks comes from. Protons and neutrons are each composed of three quarks. Up quarks have an electric charge of + 2 / 3 and down quarks have an electric charge of - 1 / 3. Two up quarks and one down quark give us a proton with an overall charge of +1. Two down quarks and one up quark give us a neutron with an overall charge of zero.
The fact that each of the 2 / 5 of charge interfaces which are between like charges each holds three times as much energy as the interfaces between opposite charges, because it takes energy to hold like charges together against their mutual repulsion, means that 2 / 3 of the overall energy in the interfaces between electric charges within matter are in the interfaces between like charges. This is because 2 x 3 is twice as much as 3 x 1.
That explains why the relativistic mass increase for an object moving at half the speed of light, 1.155 and it's reciprocal .866, is exactly the same as the trigonometric functions, secant and cosine, as a 30 degree angle which is 1 / 3 of a right angle. If, as in my cosmology theory, velocity is really an angle with the speed of light being a 90 degree angle, then a 30 degree angle is 1 / 3 of the speed of light.
That is a reflection of 2 / 3 of the energy within matter being held in the interfaces between like electric charges. The other 1 / 3 that is held in the interfaces between opposite charges "does not count" because if the matter were not there it would be empty space. Space is a perfectly alternating checkerboard pattern of negative and positive electric charges in multiple dimensions, although the perfect pattern can be disturbed by the ripples of energy that we refer to as electromagnetic waves.
So, in calculating anything about the energy in matter we do not include this 1 / 3 of energy in the interfaces between opposite charges in the matter that would be there anyway if the matter were empty space.
Now remember that the critical mass described above is held together by the opposite charge attraction between the negatively-charged electrons and the positively-charged nuclei. Even though both the electrons and the protons in the nuclei are matter in that 2 / 3 of their energy in electric charge interfaces is held between like charges, that does not apply to the attraction between the two that holds the atom together and also the mass of metal because the definition of a metal is that a vast number of atoms share their outer electrons between them. The mass of metal is held together by the opposite charge attraction between those electrons and the nuclei.
Since the mass of metal, within the protons and electrons themselves and not the space between the two, 1 / 3 of the energy in that mass is held in the interfaces between opposite charges, and each atom and also the entire mass is held together by the opposite-charge attraction between electrons and protons, that means that the 2 / 3 of energy within the matter that is held in the 2 / 5 of the charge interfaces that are between like charges, that means that these 2 / 5 hold twice as much energy as that in the electron-proton attraction that holds each atom, as well as the entire mass, together. Because, again, 2 x 3 is twice as much as 3 x 1.
That means that when 1 / 5 of the atoms in the critical mass have been split by fission, releasing their energy, that matches the energy in the opposite-charge electrical attraction that is holding the mass of metal together. That is why in the critical mass of plutonium in the first nuclear bomb that was tested, in New Mexico, only 1 / 5 of the atoms were actually split because, at that point, the mass blasted itself apart which halted the fission process.
The total energy held in the 2 / 5 of interfaces between electric charges in matter that are between like charges was not released, remember that only a few percent of the total energy in a nucleus is released by fission. But this was the energy that would be released in the stage that was involved, that of splitting a large atom of plutonium, or the 235 isotope of uranium, into two smaller atoms, which also forces a rearrangement of the crystalline structure of the metal, held together by shared electrons. The rest of the energy in the interfaces between like charges is still held in the two smaller atoms.
But the fact that it was 1 / 5 of the atoms in the critical mass that split before the mass blasted itself apart shows that what I have explained all along in the cosmology theory is correct.THE FIFTH OF MATTER AND SUPERNOVA
In the initial tests of nuclear bombs, it is known that only about 1 / 5 of the atoms actually underwent fission. The bomb works by firing high-speed neutrons at a critical mass of either plutonium or the 235 isotope of uranium. A neutron has a neutral electric charge and so is not affected by the negative charges of the electrons in atoms, or the positive charge of the nucleus.
The nucleus takes up only a very small space in the center of the atom. The vast majority of an atom is empty space. But eventually, a neutron will probably strike a nucleus before exiting the mass of fissile material. This splits the nucleus into two smaller atoms, typically krypton and barium, and, since these two new atoms have fewer total neutrons than the larger original atom, these excess neutrons also fly out at high speeds and (hopefully) strike and split another nucleus before exiting the critical mass.
This thus forms that is referred to as a chain reaction. The average number of neutrons released by a split uranium-235 atom is about 2.5 and by a plutonium atom about 3. This is why most uranium atoms, isotope 238, will not work as fissile material. There are too many neutrons holding the nucleus together so that it cannot be split by the neutron.
That is why the mass undergoing fission has to be at least the critical mass in size, and spherical. If the mass is smaller than the critical mass then too many neutrons will escape before striking a nucleus because the smaller mass will have a higher surface-to-volume ratio.
My cosmology theory explains why only 1 / 5 of the atoms actually undergo fusion. The reason that the fission is never anywhere near complete is simply that the mass will blast itself apart before the chain reaction can get to all of the nuclei in every atom.
The reason that it is 1 / 5 of the atoms undergo fission is that 2 / 5 of the interfaces between electric charges in atoms are between like charges, which mutually repel but are held together by energy. This energy holding like charges together is, in my cosmology theory, what forms matter, and is the well-known Mass-Energy Equivalence. The other 3 / 5 of the interfaces between electric charges are between opposite charges, which naturally attract.
Empty space is made up of a multi-dimensional checkerboard of opposite negative and positive electric charges. Like charges can be held together, against their mutual repulsion, by energy. There is some energy in all interfaces between charges but the ones between like charges have three times as much energy in them as the ones between opposite charges.
The bonds between like charges, held together by energy, are what hold the fundamental particles together, the electrons and quarks that make up the nucleons. But it is the attraction between opposite charges that holds the whole mass together. But since 2 / 5 of the total interfaces between electric charges are between like charges, which each have three times are much energy as the 3 / 5 between the opposite charges that hold the whole mass together, that means that the energy released when 1 / 5 of the atoms have been split by fission, enough energy has been released to surpass the energy in the interfaces between opposite charges that hold the mass together, and thus the mass is blasted apart.
With that review, now let's see how this applies to a supernova and our Solar System.
We know that the sun is a so-called "second-generation star". We can tell by spectroscopy that the sun contains heavy elements that are well beyond it's current stage in the nuclear fusion process. Fission, described in the review above, is the opposite of fusion. Fusion is the crunching together of atoms by gravity. A star is born when enough matter comes together by it's mutual gravity that the electron repulsion that ordinarily holds atoms apart is overcome and small atoms are crunched together into larger ones.
Large atoms contain less energy than the smaller atoms that were crunched together to form them. This is because the nucleus of the larger atoms must contain more neutrons per protons and an electron is crunched into a proton to create a neutron, and this is a lower energy state than the proton and electron separate. The excess energy is released as radiation and this is why the sun and other stars shine.
Another way that we could look at the internal energy of atoms, the Mass-Energy Equivalence, is in terms of the surface area of the atoms. Surface area represents distance, and thus energy. The new and larger atom has less overall surface area than the smaller atoms that were crunched together to form it. This is the solar or stellar energy that gets released as radiation.
The lightest, and by far the most abundant, element in the universe is hydrogen. The sun is presently crunching four atoms of hydrogen into one atom of helium. The leftover energy is released as the sun's radiation. When the hydrogen is used up, the sun will begin crunching the helium together into successively heavier atoms. The process continues until we get to iron, element number 26. The ordinary fusion process can only go as far as iron.
This ordinary stellar fusion process, up to iron, is known as the slow or S-process. Elements heavier than iron, the heaviest naturally-occurring element is uranium, number 92 meaning that it has 92 protons in a nucleus, are formed only by the release of energy as a large star explodes as a supernova. That is why iron and elements, and elements below it, are exponentially more common than elements heavier than iron. These heavier elements require a net input of energy which is not possible without the explosion.
A star is an equilibrium between the inward force of gravity and the outward energy of it's nuclear fusion. As the star keeps crunching smaller atoms into heavier ones, and then those into still heavier ones, the energy released per time increases because larger atoms being crunched together releases more net energy than smaller ones. This upsets the equilibrium of the star and it begins growing outward. Late in it's life, the sun is expected to reach what is known as the "red giant stage".
But if the star is large enough, meaning that more atoms are undergoing fusion in it's core, the star can actually explode and scatter it's component matter across space. That is what the Solar System is today, and why the sun is a second-generation star. A large star exploded and much of it's matter fell back together by gravity to form the sun and planets. That previous star must have been much larger than the sun because the sun is not large enough to explode as a supernova.
I define a nova as the blasting away of the outer layers of a star, due to the increased energy release of fusion in the star's core, and a supernova as the explosion of the star from the center. This is why, in my view, the outer planets of the Solar System contain a preponderance of molecules formed of light atoms, such as methane and ammonia, and comets are made of ices such as water. The previous star first blasted away the lighter atoms in it's outer reaches, which went further out into space because they had a higher starting point, before exploding from the center.
We can easily see how the ordinary fusion process only goes as far as iron, before the previous star exploded in a supernova, by how abundant iron is in the earth and the inner Solar System. Mercury has been nicknamed "The Iron Planet". The earth is 64x the volume of the moon, but has 81x it's mass, because, while both are made out of rock, the earth has a heavy iron core that the moon lacks. This lack of an iron core shows in the fact that the moon has practically no magnetic field.
Iron is the most common element in the earth by mass and close to 1 / 3 the mass of the earth consists of iron. We know that lighter elements in the inner Solar System were forced outward by the sun's heat and the solar wind, the stream of charged particles from the sun.
Now here is my hypothesis. The mass of the earth and inner planets, up to Mars, are now close to 1 / 3 iron. But originally, before lighter elements being forced toward the outer Solar System by the heat and solar wind, the mass of the inner Solar System was about 1 / 5 iron.
This means that the supernova, the explosion of the previous star that existed before the present sun, occurred when about 1 / 5 of the mass in the core of the star was in the form of iron, and the fusion process could not go any further. A supernova is not exactly a nuclear explosion, it is a change in the previous equilibrium of the star, but it is driven by the fusion process.
This is like an inverse mirror image of the fission critical mass, described above, blasting itself apart when 1 / 5 of the atoms have been split. The energy released comes from the interfaces of like charges that are held together by energy, what science calls the "Mass-Energy Equivalence". 2 / 5 of all interfaces between electric charges in matter are such interfaces between like charges. These each have three times, according to my cosmology theory, as much energy as the usual interfaces of empty space between opposite charges that naturally attract.
That is why, when 1 / 5 of the atoms undergoing fusion in the core of the star have become part of an iron atom and the process can go no further, the energy released surpasses that of the 3 / 5 of the interfaces between opposite charges that holds the star together, but each has only 1 / 3 of the energy of an interface between like charges. This is what causes the star to explode as a supernova and is why, after much matter consisting of lighter atoms has been forced outward by the heat of the sun and the solar wind, close to 1 / 3 of the matter in the inner Solar System is iron.
10) THE CHEMISTRY CONUNDRUM
I very much doubt that I am the first person who has noticed this. There is something about basic chemistry that is confusing and doesn't make sense. It concerns valence, or the exchange of electrons between atoms to form molecules.
There are two electric charges, negative and positive. But negative and positive are represented by the symbols "-" and "+". The confusion begins because these two symbols also have another meaning.
Minus, "-", means to subtract or take away. This is the same symbol that is used for negative electric charge.
Plus, "+", means to add or join to. This is the same symbol that is used for positive electric charge.
There are two types of bonds between atoms so that they form compounds or molecules. Ionic bonds are where one atom loses an electron to another so that one atom has a net negative charge and the other has a net positive charge, so that they join together by mutual opposite charge attraction. Covalent bonds, in structures such as the complex structures of carbon atoms, is where two atoms share one or more electrons.
Ionic bonds are more in inanimate matter but the molecular bonds in living things rely on covalent bonds. As you can see by your flesh, matter based on covalent bonds is often flexible while ionic bonds tend to be brittle or inflexible.
This conundrum concerns ionic bonds. Suppose that two atoms are close together and one takes an outer electron from the other. Because electrons have a negative charge, the atom that loses the electron will then have a net positive charge. The atom that gains the electron will then have a net negative charge.
Do you see how confusing this is?
An atom loses an electron which has a negative charge, as in "-", yet it now has a positive charge, as in "+", as if it has gained something because "+" also means addition.
The other atom gains the electron. To gain means to add something. Addition is symbolized by the plus sign, "+", but the atom now has a negative charge, which is symbolized by the opposite sign, "-".
The negative and positive designations given to the two opposite electric charges are entirely arbitrary. We could just as easily called negative positive and vice versa. If we said that the electron has a positive charge, while the nucleus has a negative charge, which is now what we define as antimatter, it would make more sense.
An atom that GAINED an electron would then have a POSITIVE electric charge, as in "+".
An atom that LOST an electron would then have a NEGATIVE electric charge, as in "-".
Wouldn't that make more sense and be less confusing?
11) PROOF OF THE BIG BANG
Most scientists agree that the universe began with what is referred to as the "Big Bang". Scientists didn't arrive at the Big Bang, it was actually introduced by a Belgian Catholic priest, Georges Lemaitre, based on the Christian idea of the beginning, but is now very widely accepted in the scientific community. Before the Big Bang there was the "Steady State" Theory of the universe.
The existence of neutrinos was originally conceived by Austrian physicist Wolfgang Pauli to explain an unaccounted imbalance in momentum during nuclear reactions. Neutrinos were actually discovered in 1956.
A neutrino is not an "original" particle. It is created only during nuclear reactions. It would not exist on it's own without these nuclear reactions. Neutrinos are produced by stars and by a star exploding in a supernova. They can be generated in particle accelerators. Neutrinos are also released by radioactive processes such as beta decay, which is the breaking down of a neutron into a proton by releasing an electron and a neutrino.
Neutrinos are in the same class of particles as electrons, and are known as leptons. In fact, there are three types of neutrino and each is associated with one of the three types of electron. The three electrons and their associated neutrinos make up the class of particles that are called leptons.
So a neutrino is a particle in the same class as electrons, except that a neutrino has an extremely slight mass and no net electric charge, unlike the electron with it's negative charge. But they are still such a mystery as to why they exist and what they accomplish in the grand scheme of things.
Ordinary matter consists of atoms which have electrons in orbitals around protons and neutrons. These electrons are just ordinary what we could call first generation electrons. But there are two heavier versions of electrons that can exist, but which are both short-lived. Mau electrons, or muons, could be called second-generation electrons. Tau electrons are heavier, but shorter-lived, still and could be called third-generation electrons.
These two heavier versions of the electron, but with the same charge as an ordinary electron, are known to be produced only by cosmic rays or particle accelerators. All three have their corresponding type of neutrino, and the six particles are what makes up the lepton family.
As it turns out, my cosmology theory has a simple explanation for what neutrinos are and how they come to be. Let's use K-capture, the crunching of an electron into a proton to create a neutron, and then a later reversal of the process by beta radioactive decay as an example.
During a supernova, the explosion of a large star, the tremendous energy released creates elements that would not exist otherwise. The sun is a second-generation star that, along with the Solar System, is made of matter that fell back together by gravity after the original stare exploded. The ordinary fusion process in stars only goes as far as iron. That is why iron is so abundant in the inner Solar System and why iron and lighter elements are exponentially more common than elements that are heavier than iron.
Elements that are heavier than iron have proportionally more neutrons relative to protons. This is necessary to hold the nucleus together against the mutual repulsion of the positively-charged protons. Neutrons in these heavier elements are "made" by the energy released by the supernova explosion. Electrons in low orbitals are crunched into protons to create neutrons in the process referred to as K-capture. Since the proton has a positive charge and the electron a negative charge, the two cancel out to the neutral charge of the neutron.
But many of these heavier elements, or certain isotopes of them, are not entirely stable. Isotopes are atoms with the same number of protons in the nucleus, which is what defines the element, but differing numbers of neutrons. These unstable atoms gradually break down into more stable configurations in the process known as radioactivity.
There are three types of radioactivity. Alpha is for a large atom to emit an alpha particle in order to gain more stability. An alpha particle is essentially a helium nucleus, two protons with two neutrons. Another type of radioactivity is gamma. This is releasing excess energy in the atom by electromagnetic radiation, known as gamma rays.
The third type of radioactivity is beta. That is the seeking of a more stable configuration by having a neutron emit an electron, that was originally forced into it by the energy of the supernova explosion, in order to change into a proton, which would make the atom the next highest one on the Periodic Table since the element is defined by the number of protons.
But this process of beta decay, which we are using for our example here, releases a neutrino as well as an electron. The mystery is where the neutrino comes from. Here is the explanation that my cosmology theory has to offer.
The electron has orbital energy when it is in it's orbital in the atom, before it is crunched into the proton. When the electron is pushed toward the nucleus, this orbital energy is released as radiation. That is why stars shine, because heavier atoms have many fewer electrons than the smaller atoms that they were crunched together from and, if the electrons are going to be crunched into protons to create the necessary neutrons, their orbital energy has to go somewhere.
From the altitude of it's orbital the nucleus has a positive charge, which is what holds the negatively-charged electron in it's orbital, but the charge of the nucleus is somewhat diffuse because there are many neutrally-charged neutrons among the positively-charged protons. But as the falling electron gets closer to the proton that it is going to be crunched into to form another neutron, the positive charge on it gets stronger because the neutrons of the nucleus are relatively further away, making the attractive positive charge facing the electron less diffuse than it was.
The electron thus accelerates relative to the velocity that it would be moving toward the nucleus if it's apparent diffuse positive charge had remained constant. This acceleration is energy, and energy has to be accounted for.
In my cosmology theory everything, both space and matter, is made of negative and positive electric charges. The basic rules of these charges are that opposite charges attract while like charges repel. Matter is any concentration of like charges, space is a perfect checkerboard of alternating negative and positive charges.
But there is also energy and what energy ultimately does is overcome the repulsive force between like electric charges. Matter is defined as having mass and this mass is actually the energy that is holding the like charges together against their otherwise mutual repulsion. That is where the well-known mass-energy equivalence comes from, a certain amount of mass is equivalent to a certain amount of energy. This is what Einstein's famous formula, E = MC squared, is about, the equivalence of mass and energy.
So as the electron impacts the proton that it is joining with, what this extra energy caused by the necessary acceleration does is it goes to rearrange the alternating negative and positive electric charges of space so that it holds some like charges, both negative and positive, together. It actually creates matter from this extra energy.
Since it is created by the acceleration of the electron, before it meets the proton to form a neutron, this new matter takes the form of the electron. It is actually a replica of the electron. But it's mass is not that of the mass-energy equivalence within the electron, but only that of it's impact with the proton. This means that the new mass, although it has the form of the electron, has far less mass than the electron.
Since there is no reason for an electric charge imbalance, the new mass is sandwiched between the positively-charged proton and the negatively-charged electron, the new mass has no net electric charge. It's energy holds like charges together, but there are equal numbers of negative-to-negative and positive-to-positive bonds.
So the added energy caused by the acceleration as it nears the proton, because the positive charge that attracts it is now less diffuse then it was when the neutrons of the nucleus were at the same average distance from the electron as the protons, goes to create a new particle in the form of the electron but with far less mass and no net electric charge.
If the neutron should later break back into an electron and a proton by radioactive beta decay, there will be no reason for it to be incorporated into either the proton or the electron. It will be ejected as a particle on it's own.
If you were walking and left a footprint in the ground, the ground is the proton, your shoe is the electron, and the footprint is the neutrino.
Let's welcome the neutrino.
First, let's review the nature of matter and space in my cosmology theory.
Everything is made of near-infinitesimal negative and positive electric charges. Opposite charges attract and like charges repel. Space is a pattern of alternating negative and positive charges, in multiple dimensions. But like charges can be held together, against their mutual repulsion, by energy. This gives us the charged particles, such as electrons, that compose matter. The energy that holds the like charges together shows up as mass, the well-known Mass-Energy Equivalence.
What we perceive as electromagnetic waves, such as light and radio waves, are actually disturbances in the underlying balance of negative and positive charges. This makes it seem that the waves are electromagnetic.
Yet the reduction in mass is also energy. It works against the Mass-Energy Equivalence. The binding energy that holds the positively-charged protons together against their mutual repulsion actually rearranged the like charges into sets, so that there is some mixing of opposite charges, although nowhere near the perfectly mixed checkerboard of charges, in multiple dimensions, of empty space.
A simplified example is that empty space is alternating negative and positive charges, + - + - + - + -. Matter is concentrated like charges, held together against their mutual repulsion by the Mass-Energy Equivalence, + + + + - - - -. Then the nuclear force, the nuclear binding energy that holds the nucleus together, somewhat rearranges the charges of matter into sets so that there is some mixing of opposite charges, although nowhere near the perfectly alternating pattern of empty space, + + - - + + - -.
This allows opposite charge attraction to hold the nucleus together. But the move towardward mixing of the two opposite charges lessens the total mass of the nucleus, as mass is defined as like charges held together by energy, hence the Mass-Energy Equivalence.
The reduction in mass, the Mass Defect, is also energy. A larger atom has more binding energy per nucleon, and this is the energy that is released when the atom is split in two by fission.
Neutrons have an equal number of negative and positive charges, hence their overall neutral charge, and this is why neutrons are so necessary for binding energy. Heavier atoms have more neutrons per proton. But the number of protons is what defines the element. During the fusion of smaller atoms into larger ones, in the centers of stars, an electron can be crunched into a proton to create a neutrons, a process known as K-capture.
But this necessity of neutrons for binding energy gives us a definite clue as to it's true nature. The nucleus is held together by opposite-charge attraction, despite it's overall positive charge. This shows my cosmology theory, everything composed of electric charges, to be correct as it makes this concept of Mass Defect so simple.
It also shows that energy and information is really the same thing, as described in the information theory in the compound posting on this blog "The Theory Of Complexity". We cannot apply energy to anything without adding information to it, and we cannot add information to anything without applying energy to it. Another way we see that information and energy is really the same thing is the way we can make our lives physically easier by using technology, but only at the expense of making them more complex. We can never, on a large scale, make our lives physically easier and also less complex.
Binding energy is energy, although it decreases the total mass of the nucleus which seems to defy the principle of the Mass-Energy Equivalence, because it would require more information to describe the arrangement of the electric charges than the simple concentration of like charges that comprises matter.
Since we can be sure that binding energy is, in fact, energy because it is released when a heavy atom is split by fission, this shows definitely that energy and information is really the same thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment