In this post, I shall present one piece of compelling evidence in support of The UP Hypothesis, which I introduced in a previous post under that title. I urge interested readers to familiarise themselves with the hypothesis in that post before continuing with this one. The evidence I shall present here is not new information. It is information based on research findings that has been in the public domain for some time and relates to a physical phenomenon that has been ambiguously explained in somehow self-contradicting terms. The phenomenon is manifest in the inverse relationship between the number of protons in atoms of different chemical elements and their respective radii in every period in the periodic table.
Atomic radii in any one period in the table are found to progressively shrink with increased number of protons, so that the greater the number, the smaller the radius of the atom, up to and including the noble gas in that period. Then, the addition of a proton and the first element in the next period sees drastic increase in its radius. For example, the radius of the hydrogen atom is smaller than that of the helium atom. However, in the next element, namely, lithium, which marks the start of the second period in the table, instead of a reduction in the radius of the atom, we observe a drastic increase.
The current interpretation of this phenomenon is that with increased number of protons, the force from the nucleus on the electrons becomes stronger and therefore the electrons are attracted with greater force causing the radius of the atom to shrink. However, if that is the case, the phenomenon is expected to continue with the addition of protons in all elements. So, why does the radius increase at the start of each period, then continue to decrease progressively until it reaches a noble gas? The answer, as I shall explain has nothing to do with the increased attraction force due to increased proton number. Rather, it relates to the change in pressure distribution in and around the atom, which dictates proton distribution and consequently change in the geometry of atoms.
From the definition of matter particles based on the UP hypothesis and the apparent similarity of the properties of chemical elements in each group in the periodic table, I was able determine the reason behind that inverse relationship between protons numbers and atomic radii. I discovered that the number of protons in an atom affects their distribution, the positions of their electrons and consequently the geometry of atoms. As I sketched the likely arrangement of nucleons, I was suddenly struck by the reality of what drives chemical reactions, the source of molecular bonds and electron binding energy amongst a host of other revelations.
I began to realise why noble gases are inert, why some reactions require catalysts, why some are faster than others, why some chemical bonds are stronger than others and why some elements form solutions, but not chemical compounds. In effect, I discovered in real physical sense what lies behind the relevant mathematical equations and chemical reaction formulae. This is quite a list of revelations and there are many more answers to reveal which have hitherto remained in the realm of speculation!
I shall begin by a statement outlining the formation of atoms. The statement should remove all enigma attached to what atoms of different elements are and what they look like as entities. Most likely and for the first time, you will see in your mind’s eye atoms as interactive systems of utmost consistency and precision. Following the statement, I shall discuss its implication and finish by reinforce the evidence with one example relating to the behaviour of water (H2O) molecules as they approach freezing temperature.
‘The combining of two or more string elements in one mass confinement increases the size of the mass and consequently the negative pressure on the strings inside it. Thus, the elements become fixed at the centre of mass, where negative pressure is greatest, while continuing to rotate. They therefore appear to bond at the centre of mass forming a solid hard region referred to as the atomic nucleus.
Whereas an isolated proton produces a very shallow cavity (mass) in the UP medium, the addition of a nucleon increase the depth of the mass, altering the pressure distribution and consequently the length and shape of the stings. The pressure distribution in a cavity within the medium is controlled by the symmetry imposed by the spin orientation in the quantum field. Thus, with increased nucleons the mass of the atom becomes deeper and the strings-ends curve away from the central plane of rotation, producing a symmetrical arrangement about a common plane of rotation.
Adding more nucleons to the atom increases its depth, but only up to a limit. That limit, which is dictated by the pressure distribution produced by the mass is responsible for the periodicity in the periodic table and is reached when the atom’s mass begins to reach spherical geometry[1]. The addition of a further proton makes the pressure distribution in the mass unsustainable forcing it to collapse and the strings to assume a new order in much shallower ellipsoidal cavity.
The proximity of orbits of string-ends prohibits alternate strings from forming an electric charge due to interference. Therefore, alternate nucleons appear as neutrons because they fail to form charges and thus they fail to form or maintain electrons. In isotopes in which more than two neutrons coexist adjacent to one another, the central neutron ends-up developing a charge and thus it appears to decay to a proton, which subsequently forms an electron, which in turn forms an antineutrino.’
The above statement could be considered ‘a new theory of the atom’. It is a direct consequence of the UP hypothesis and agrees with all current theories, or at least it does not conflict with any of them— not least quantum theory. It explain in simple language the nature of the atom as a collection of cyclical quantum events (subatomic particles) in space-time. Cyclical events in space-time can lend themselves mathematically to wave theory, hence the concept of matter as waves in quantum mechanics. Though, I must point out here that whereas matter particles could be considered standing waves, photons, as wave-particles propagate in space-time as part of complex wave structures, because as well as being waves, they generate and interact with the waves they produce in the fabric of space.
In addition, the statement explains hitherto inexplicable observations relating to atoms and why they differ in their properties, including the arrangement of nucleons, the stability of atomic nuclei in isotopes, the apparently spontaneous beta decay, the similarity of the properties of elements in the different groups in the periodic table and much more, the arrangement of electron shells or energy levels, which underpins Pauli’s exclusion principle in quantum mechanics. Those claims are of course more than substantial and the questions behind some of them have been lurking in the human mind from time immemorial. Therefore, one can be excused for initially doubting their validity, until they understand the hypothesis.
Starting from the atom of the first chemical elements in the first period, namely hydrogen— Fig 1, the addition of another string element leads to its first isotope, namely deuterium. It cannot form a different element, because the proximity of the ends of its two string elements prohibits the forming of adjacent electric charges. This explains the reason behind the immediate decay of diproton atoms, which are helium atoms with two protons and no neutrons.
Adding third nucleon to the deuterium atom changes it in one of two ways depending upon the location of the additional string. If it is located next to the proton the atom becomes another hydrogen isotope, namely, tritium (3H), because being adjacent to a proton, it cannot form an electric charge. Thus, the proton is sandwiched between two neutrons. This isotope is relatively stable with half-life of 12.23 years. However, if the new string is located next to the neutron, it forms an electric charge and thus appears as helium–3, which is extremely rare in nature. There is one helium–3 atom for every one million helium–4 atoms in the atmosphere. The reason is that the relatively small size of the helium atom in view of its geometry, makes one neutron incapable of providing sufficient segregation distance between the two proton charges under standard ambient conditions. As such, it is susceptible to decay to tritium, or may even alternate between the two types of atom depending upon ambient conditions and the molecular structure in which it exits.
Adding forth nucleon to the tritium or to a helium–3 atom causes it to become helium isotope having two protons and two neutrons (4He). This isotope of helium is table because the two adjacent neutrons provide sufficient clearance between the charges of the two protons. On this basis, one would expect helium–5, like hydrogen–3 (tritium) to be relatively stable because of having protons and neutrons at alternate positions. However, that is not the case, because the pressure distribution produced by five nucleons demands greater depth that that produced in spherical geometry. As such, the mass collapses to lithium— Fig 2, and the cycle repeats in the second period. At the end of any period, when the number of nucleons reaches that of a noble gas, which has the smallest radius of all element in its period, the addition of a proton causes the mass to collapse marking the start of the next period.
Considering the list of chemical elements against their atomic radii and assuming the mass of noble gases to be spherical, I determined the depth (c) of other atoms using that depth to radius ration of noble gases using the formula for the volume of an ellipsoid [V = (4/3) pi (a b c), with a = b = r, where r is the atomic radius]. I sketched the atoms and found that the shallower they are, the more energetic they appear and the stronger the bonds they form. The reason is, the shallower the atom, the greater the distance between its electron orbits[2].
Therefore, in the case of transition from hydrogen to helium, the atom changes geometry from ellipsoidal to spherical. The spherical shape of the atom has minimum distance between electron orbits and as such it produces the least attraction from the mass (strong force) on the surrounding UPs. This is the principle on which all atoms attract one another to form molecules and it is what determines the strength of bonds in molecules, the speeds of chemical reactions, hence the inert nature of noble gases and their gaseous phase under ambient conditions. In fact, and may not be apparent at this stage, this force is the source of electron binding energy.
I have not explained the reason behind the difference in light spectra emitted by different elements. However, I shall do so in a future post on structure of light. At this juncture, I rest my case with the application of the above to explain one unusual phenomenon, which is the behaviour of water on freezing.
The current interpretation of the phenomenon of water expanding upon freezing is that when water molecules are cooled close to freezing the bond between the hydrogen atoms in water molecules causes the molecules to open-up forming gaps within their hexagonal structure, which causes the expansion and subsequent reduction in density. However, this is incorrect, for if that were correct, there will be no chance of producing super-cooled water, which is liquid water well below freezing point. In fact, considering this interpretation from the perspective of the UP hypothesis, in which temperature is defined as the amplitude of oscillation of UPs, a reduction in that amplitude could only bring atoms in molecules closer, as observed in the contraction of other molecules when cooled. What is different about cooling water upon freezing is not temperature per se. Rather, it is the forced displacement of oxygen atoms by those of hydrogen as the pressure on them increases due to reduced amplitude of oscillation of the surrounding UPs. Thus, every third oxygen atom of every third molecule is forced out of it location to be occupied by two smaller hydrogen atoms as shown in Fig 3. This increases the overall volume occupied by the same number of molecules.
[1] The actual geometry of mass is not exactly spherical nor ellipsoidal, the adoption of that geometry is to simplify the concepts presented here. Either side of the nucleus, the cavity of mass diminishes and therefore the geometry is closer to a torus than a sphere or an ellipsoid.
[2] The electron orbit is not an orbit in which the electron orbits the proton, for the electron may remain in one location close to the proton. The orbit of the electron is the distance away from the ends of a proton string at an electron can reside and neutralize the effect of the proton— refer to my previous post Quantum Gyroscopes.
