Here is a quick look at my other blogs before you start this one.
My main blog, where the most recent postings on all topics are to be found, is http://www.markmeeksideas.blogspot.com/
If you liked this blog on physics and astronomy, you will also like my blogs about cosmology, http://www.markmeekcosmology.blogspot.com/ and creation, http://www.markmeekcreation.blogspot.com/
http://www.markmeekearth.blogspot.com/ is my geology and global natural history blog for topics other than glaciers. http://www.markmeekworld.blogspot.com/ is my natural history blog concerning glaciers.
http://www.markmeekniagara.blogspot.com/ is about new discoveries concerning natural history in the general area of Niagara Falls.
http://www.markmeeklife.blogspot.com/ is my observations concerning meteorology and biology.
http://www.markmeekpatterns.blogspot.com/ details my work with the fundamental patterns and complexity that underlies everything in existence.
http://www.markmeekeconomics.blogspot.com/ is my blog about economics, history and, other human issues.
http://www.markmeekprogress.blogspot.com/ is about progress in technology and ideas.
http://www.markmeekreligion.blogspot.com/ is my religion blog.
http://www.mark-meek.blogspot.com/ is my autobiography
http://www.markmeektravel.blogspot.com/ is my travel photos of North America. http://www.markmeekphotos.blogspot.com/ is my travel photos of Europe.
My books can be seen at http://www.bn.com/ http://www.amazon.com/ or, http://www.iuniverse.com/ just do an author search for "Mark Meek"
Monday, May 26, 2014
PHYSICS
The first section of this blog is about physics. To enter the astronomy section, click on 2009 in the column at right.
The Science Structure
We sometimes see subjects such as chemistry, physics and, astronomy referred to as "branches" of science. This implies that, if we sought a way to connect all of the sciences together, we would end up with a structure somewhat like a tree with it's various branches. However, it seems to me that the structure is actually more like a ten-story building with each "branch" of science being one story, and being dependent for support on those stories beneath it.
1) The foundation of science is mathematics. Indeed, the majority of physicists involved with cosmology believe that everything is really just numbers being manifested. Mathematics are the fundamental patterns of everything that exists, and everything is a manifestation of these patterns. We can separate mathematics from science by defining mathematics as that which is completely understood, while science is that which is partially understood. This is because it is necessary to completely understand something in order to define it with numbers. We can see this in the calendar and the periodic table of the elements. We can thus conclude that statistics must be at the border region between science and math because, although it is considered as mathematics, we cannot describe exactly what will happen but can only give the odds of it happening due to incomplete knowledge.
2) The ground floor of the science structure is cosmology. This is the fundamental physics, forces and, particles of which matter is composed. The hydrogen atom, a simple arrangement of one electron in orbit around one proton, is also a part of the level. Everything above depends on this.
3) The next level is astronomy. This is the large scale structures across the universe that form by gravity from the atoms created in the level below.
4) The next level up is nuclear. This comes into play when enough mass comes together so that gravity overpowers the electron repulsion that keeps atoms apart and crunches smaller atoms, beginning with hydrogen, into the larger atoms of different elements. The reason that some elements are rare, while others are common, can be explained with a factor tree of numbers because heavier elements are simply lighter elements fused together. Elements are defined by the number of protons in the nucleus and those whose number has a lot of numerical factors tend to be more common than those that don't.
5) With different elements, we now have chemistry as the next level as atoms of those elements combine in various ways by either ionic bonding, when one atom loses an electron to another so that they bond by the resulting negative-positive attraction, or by covalent bonding when two or more atoms share an electron. Such chemical bonding does not take place in the interior of the stars where the atoms are produced, but outside after the atoms are thrown across space by a supernova.
6) When a supernova takes place, a star explodes and scatters it's component matter across space. This will include elements heavier than hydrogen, which will fall back together by gravity to produce a second-generation star as well as planets. This brings us to another, and more local, level of astronomy with a solar system. Our sun is such a second-generation star and virtually all of the matter in our solar system came from a star that exploded.
7) The next level incorporates all of the earth sciences. This is because our planet is relatively unique due to the nature of the matter that was brought together to form it. Earth sciences include geology, oceanography, meteorology and, climatology.
8) Now we come to basic biological science and the fundamental forms of life whose bodies contributed to the earth with the gradual formation of limestone, coal and, oil.
9) Then we arrive at the higher living things, including ourselves. this level of science includes anatomy, zoology and, medicine.
10) Now that we have reached the level of human beings, we are at the highest level of science with the "human sciences" of psychology, economics, sociology and, politics.
Can you see how reality is divided into ten very distinct levels, and each level depends for it's existence on the levels below?
1) The foundation of science is mathematics. Indeed, the majority of physicists involved with cosmology believe that everything is really just numbers being manifested. Mathematics are the fundamental patterns of everything that exists, and everything is a manifestation of these patterns. We can separate mathematics from science by defining mathematics as that which is completely understood, while science is that which is partially understood. This is because it is necessary to completely understand something in order to define it with numbers. We can see this in the calendar and the periodic table of the elements. We can thus conclude that statistics must be at the border region between science and math because, although it is considered as mathematics, we cannot describe exactly what will happen but can only give the odds of it happening due to incomplete knowledge.
2) The ground floor of the science structure is cosmology. This is the fundamental physics, forces and, particles of which matter is composed. The hydrogen atom, a simple arrangement of one electron in orbit around one proton, is also a part of the level. Everything above depends on this.
3) The next level is astronomy. This is the large scale structures across the universe that form by gravity from the atoms created in the level below.
4) The next level up is nuclear. This comes into play when enough mass comes together so that gravity overpowers the electron repulsion that keeps atoms apart and crunches smaller atoms, beginning with hydrogen, into the larger atoms of different elements. The reason that some elements are rare, while others are common, can be explained with a factor tree of numbers because heavier elements are simply lighter elements fused together. Elements are defined by the number of protons in the nucleus and those whose number has a lot of numerical factors tend to be more common than those that don't.
5) With different elements, we now have chemistry as the next level as atoms of those elements combine in various ways by either ionic bonding, when one atom loses an electron to another so that they bond by the resulting negative-positive attraction, or by covalent bonding when two or more atoms share an electron. Such chemical bonding does not take place in the interior of the stars where the atoms are produced, but outside after the atoms are thrown across space by a supernova.
6) When a supernova takes place, a star explodes and scatters it's component matter across space. This will include elements heavier than hydrogen, which will fall back together by gravity to produce a second-generation star as well as planets. This brings us to another, and more local, level of astronomy with a solar system. Our sun is such a second-generation star and virtually all of the matter in our solar system came from a star that exploded.
7) The next level incorporates all of the earth sciences. This is because our planet is relatively unique due to the nature of the matter that was brought together to form it. Earth sciences include geology, oceanography, meteorology and, climatology.
8) Now we come to basic biological science and the fundamental forms of life whose bodies contributed to the earth with the gradual formation of limestone, coal and, oil.
9) Then we arrive at the higher living things, including ourselves. this level of science includes anatomy, zoology and, medicine.
10) Now that we have reached the level of human beings, we are at the highest level of science with the "human sciences" of psychology, economics, sociology and, politics.
Can you see how reality is divided into ten very distinct levels, and each level depends for it's existence on the levels below?
Isotopes Made Really Simple
The elements of the periodic table are defined by the number of protons in the nucleus of the atom. If there is a different number of protons, then it must necessarily be a different element. There is no such thing as the same element, but with a different number of protons in the nucleus.
There are also neutrons within atomic nuclei, and it is possible to have atoms of the same element but with varying numbers of neutrons. These are known as isotopes, and I would like to explain the formation of isotopes in my own way.
One of the first elements that we usually think of when we hear of isotopes is uranium. This element has 92 protons in it's nucleus. Most uranium atoms, the vast majority, are of the isotope known as Uranium-238, this means that there is a total of 238 nucleons, protons plus neutrons, in the nucleus. There is another isotope of uranium with fewer neutrons, Uranium-235. This is significant because U-235 can undergo nuclear fission, while U-238 cannot. Enriching is the extremely painstaking process of separating out the few percent of U-235 atoms from the rest.
Another commonly noted isotope is that of carbon. Most carbon is Carbon-12, with six protons and six neutrons in the nucleus. But there is also Carbon-14, with two extra neutrons, which undergoes radioactive decay. Since the so-called half-life of Carbon-14 is very precisely known, when half of the C-14 will have decayed into another isotope, it is of great use in archeological dating since all living things and former living things, such as wood and textiles, contain carbon.
Hydrogen, the lightest element with only one proton, actually has three isotopes. There can be either no neutrons, one neutron forming the isotope known as deuterium, or two neutrons in the nucleus forming tritium. The heavier isotopes of hydrogen are useful in that they can be combined with oxygen to form "heavy water", this is water, H2O, in which the hydrogen atom have neutrons so that it is heavier. This makes it useful as a nuclear moderator. Ordinary water cannot be used as a moderator because it absorbs neutrons, but if the hydrogen atoms in the water molecule already have neutrons it will slow down the neutrons without absorbing them.
In the centers of stars, lighter atoms are crunched together into heavier elements. Stars shine because there is some leftover nuclear binding energy when this takes place that is released. The first atoms created by the Big Bang, which began the universe, were mostly hydrogen and far lesser amounts of helium, lithium and beryllium. The vast majority of the atoms in the universe are still hydrogen.
The number of neutrons in the nucleus of a given atom is the result of the "addition route" that it took to get where it is by smaller atoms being crunched together into larger atoms. My thought is that a nucleus put together from more smaller atoms, rather than a few larger atoms, will tend to have fewer neutrons even as it has the same number of protons as like atoms. But, on the other hand, it would seem to make sense that unions formed of fewer atoms would be more likely to occur even if it may be easier to crunch smaller atoms together than larger ones and smaller atoms are naturally much more abundant. Some atoms are first formed as heavier ones and then, through radioactive decay, turn into lighter atoms.
Basically, the route through the "factor tree" of small atoms being crunched together into larger ones that the atom of the given element takes to arrive at being that element determines which isotope of that element it will be,
Another question is where neutrons originate from. We know that a neutron left outside a nucleus will decay into a proton and an electron in a relatively short period of time. This implies that neutrons are actually protons and electrons crunched together so that they are neutral particles with no charge, with the electron changing one of the component quarks to another. The neutron requires the nucleus to hold it together even as it holds the nucleus together. The larger the atom, by far the greater the number of neutrons relative to protons.
There are also neutrons within atomic nuclei, and it is possible to have atoms of the same element but with varying numbers of neutrons. These are known as isotopes, and I would like to explain the formation of isotopes in my own way.
One of the first elements that we usually think of when we hear of isotopes is uranium. This element has 92 protons in it's nucleus. Most uranium atoms, the vast majority, are of the isotope known as Uranium-238, this means that there is a total of 238 nucleons, protons plus neutrons, in the nucleus. There is another isotope of uranium with fewer neutrons, Uranium-235. This is significant because U-235 can undergo nuclear fission, while U-238 cannot. Enriching is the extremely painstaking process of separating out the few percent of U-235 atoms from the rest.
Another commonly noted isotope is that of carbon. Most carbon is Carbon-12, with six protons and six neutrons in the nucleus. But there is also Carbon-14, with two extra neutrons, which undergoes radioactive decay. Since the so-called half-life of Carbon-14 is very precisely known, when half of the C-14 will have decayed into another isotope, it is of great use in archeological dating since all living things and former living things, such as wood and textiles, contain carbon.
Hydrogen, the lightest element with only one proton, actually has three isotopes. There can be either no neutrons, one neutron forming the isotope known as deuterium, or two neutrons in the nucleus forming tritium. The heavier isotopes of hydrogen are useful in that they can be combined with oxygen to form "heavy water", this is water, H2O, in which the hydrogen atom have neutrons so that it is heavier. This makes it useful as a nuclear moderator. Ordinary water cannot be used as a moderator because it absorbs neutrons, but if the hydrogen atoms in the water molecule already have neutrons it will slow down the neutrons without absorbing them.
In the centers of stars, lighter atoms are crunched together into heavier elements. Stars shine because there is some leftover nuclear binding energy when this takes place that is released. The first atoms created by the Big Bang, which began the universe, were mostly hydrogen and far lesser amounts of helium, lithium and beryllium. The vast majority of the atoms in the universe are still hydrogen.
The number of neutrons in the nucleus of a given atom is the result of the "addition route" that it took to get where it is by smaller atoms being crunched together into larger atoms. My thought is that a nucleus put together from more smaller atoms, rather than a few larger atoms, will tend to have fewer neutrons even as it has the same number of protons as like atoms. But, on the other hand, it would seem to make sense that unions formed of fewer atoms would be more likely to occur even if it may be easier to crunch smaller atoms together than larger ones and smaller atoms are naturally much more abundant. Some atoms are first formed as heavier ones and then, through radioactive decay, turn into lighter atoms.
Basically, the route through the "factor tree" of small atoms being crunched together into larger ones that the atom of the given element takes to arrive at being that element determines which isotope of that element it will be,
Another question is where neutrons originate from. We know that a neutron left outside a nucleus will decay into a proton and an electron in a relatively short period of time. This implies that neutrons are actually protons and electrons crunched together so that they are neutral particles with no charge, with the electron changing one of the component quarks to another. The neutron requires the nucleus to hold it together even as it holds the nucleus together. The larger the atom, by far the greater the number of neutrons relative to protons.
The Four Time Frames
I am always looking for ways to make the universe seem simpler.
Since time, or at least the passage of time as we perceive it, is motion of matter then it's passage must ultimately be determined by matter. If there was no motion, or at least apparent motion, then there would be no such thing as time. Time thus depends on distance, which makes it equivalent to space, as I pointed out in the cosmological theory. But we will only look here at the conventional space, time and, matter as we see it.
The first of the four time frames is the briefest, because it involves the least distance, and concerns the fundamentals of matter and antimatter. As explained in the cosmological theory, when matter and antimatter meet so that they mutually annihilate, the component charges of both are simply rearranging themselves back into empty space and releasing the energy which had held them together. Antimatter is matter with the basic electric charges reversed so that positively-charged positrons, instead of electrons, are in orbit around a negatively-charged nucleus.
The second time frame is nuclear, and involves the building or breaking apart of atomic nuclei. Smaller atoms are crunched together in stars to form heavier elements, some of which can be broken apart by high-speed neutrons or will decay radioactively back into lighter elements. The factor that brings distance, and thus time, into play here is that the nuclei are separated from one another by the mutual repulsion of the electrons in orbit around them.
The third time frame is chemical, and involves interactions of the electrons in orbit around atomic nuclei. The reason that this time frame is longer than the nuclear one is simply that it involves more distance. Electrons orbit the nucleus and to get chemical interactions between adjoining atoms, those electrons are required to line up. This takes distance, and thus time.
The fourth, and longest, time frame is the physical one. This involves the movement of objects over distances, and is the longest simply because it involves more distance. It is by the cumulative effect of gravity that this longest time frame can work in the others. Gravity brings matter together so that it can react chemically, it overcomes electron repulsion in stars to crunch nuclei together into the larger atoms of heavier elements and, according to my cosmological theory, it can even shift the fundamental electric charges in black holes.
Each time frame is supported by the one below it. The nuclear time frame is supported by the electric charges of matter or antimatter, with the nucleus being a concentration of these charges. The chemical time frame is supported by the nuclear in that it is the nucleus which holds the participating electrons in orbit. The physical time frame is supported by the chemical because the objects that move are held together by chemical bonds.
The energy that drives each of the time frames must ultimately come from the one below it. For a living thing to function in a given time frame, it must obtain it's power from one below it. We operate in the physical time frame, but our bodily processes are driven by the chemical time frame.
Our perception of time is rooted in the chemical time frame processes that drive our bodies. If we were nuclear-powered instead, time would move much faster. We can manage living in the universe as we do because we live in the physical time frame but are driven by the supporting chemical time frame.
This structure of time frames is somewhat related to what we saw in "The Science Structure" on this blog, with the branches of science described as a ten-story structure. Does the universe seem any simpler now?
Since time, or at least the passage of time as we perceive it, is motion of matter then it's passage must ultimately be determined by matter. If there was no motion, or at least apparent motion, then there would be no such thing as time. Time thus depends on distance, which makes it equivalent to space, as I pointed out in the cosmological theory. But we will only look here at the conventional space, time and, matter as we see it.
The first of the four time frames is the briefest, because it involves the least distance, and concerns the fundamentals of matter and antimatter. As explained in the cosmological theory, when matter and antimatter meet so that they mutually annihilate, the component charges of both are simply rearranging themselves back into empty space and releasing the energy which had held them together. Antimatter is matter with the basic electric charges reversed so that positively-charged positrons, instead of electrons, are in orbit around a negatively-charged nucleus.
The second time frame is nuclear, and involves the building or breaking apart of atomic nuclei. Smaller atoms are crunched together in stars to form heavier elements, some of which can be broken apart by high-speed neutrons or will decay radioactively back into lighter elements. The factor that brings distance, and thus time, into play here is that the nuclei are separated from one another by the mutual repulsion of the electrons in orbit around them.
The third time frame is chemical, and involves interactions of the electrons in orbit around atomic nuclei. The reason that this time frame is longer than the nuclear one is simply that it involves more distance. Electrons orbit the nucleus and to get chemical interactions between adjoining atoms, those electrons are required to line up. This takes distance, and thus time.
The fourth, and longest, time frame is the physical one. This involves the movement of objects over distances, and is the longest simply because it involves more distance. It is by the cumulative effect of gravity that this longest time frame can work in the others. Gravity brings matter together so that it can react chemically, it overcomes electron repulsion in stars to crunch nuclei together into the larger atoms of heavier elements and, according to my cosmological theory, it can even shift the fundamental electric charges in black holes.
Each time frame is supported by the one below it. The nuclear time frame is supported by the electric charges of matter or antimatter, with the nucleus being a concentration of these charges. The chemical time frame is supported by the nuclear in that it is the nucleus which holds the participating electrons in orbit. The physical time frame is supported by the chemical because the objects that move are held together by chemical bonds.
The energy that drives each of the time frames must ultimately come from the one below it. For a living thing to function in a given time frame, it must obtain it's power from one below it. We operate in the physical time frame, but our bodily processes are driven by the chemical time frame.
Our perception of time is rooted in the chemical time frame processes that drive our bodies. If we were nuclear-powered instead, time would move much faster. We can manage living in the universe as we do because we live in the physical time frame but are driven by the supporting chemical time frame.
This structure of time frames is somewhat related to what we saw in "The Science Structure" on this blog, with the branches of science described as a ten-story structure. Does the universe seem any simpler now?
Laws Of Proportion In Physics
I have noticed a law of physics that I have never seen pointed out before. It is actually about how existing laws of physics relate to each other.
There are a number of laws of physics in which some quantity increases as a function of another quantity. Here are a few examples of increases in direct proportion: The gravity of some body in space, such as an asteroid or planet, increases in direct proportion to it's mass (Although this is only practically true if the size of the body of matter remains constant, since an increase in size along with mass would mean that an object on the surface of the body would be further from the center). Distance covered increases in direct proportion to velocity. The kinetic energy (or energy of position) of an object increases in direct proportion to the gravity of the planet that it is on, and also in direct proportion to it's altitude from the surface.
These proportion laws also apply to economics. Supply tends to increase in direct proportion to prices. When there is more demand for goods, and people are willing to pay higher prices, there is more incentive for manufacturers to produce it.
There are other laws that are similar in concept, but where one quantity increases in inverse proportion as a function of another quantity. Here are a few examples: Gravity increases in inverse proportion to distance (The closer to a planet or star one gets, the stronger it's gravitational becomes). Density increases in inverse proportion to volume (Matter becomes more dense when it is compressed into a lesser volume). Travel time increases in inverse proportion to velocity.
My observation is that in any given system or set of rules, opposite rules of proportion must balance out for any finite system, including the entire universe. For every law that something increases in direct proportion, if the universe is finite then there must something that increases in inverse proportion. Something cannot go on increasing, unless something equivalent is decreasing. So, the two sets of laws are opposite but must be equal.
In fact, this can be considered as an extension of Newton's principle that every action brings about an equal but opposite reaction, a simple example is a rocket being driven forward by it's thrust in the opposite direction. Every law of physics that has something increasing in direct proportion to something must be balanced by a law that has something increasing in inverse proportion to something. This principle also has an electrical application in Kirchhoff's law that if there is an electric current in an inductor (such as a coil of wire) that induces a current in another inductor, the secondary current will flow in a direction that opposes that of the original current.
I cannot see how it can be otherwise. The laws of physics that involve changes in proportion, either in some closed system or in the universe as a whole, must balance between those that increase in direct proportion and those that increase in inverse proportion. To be otherwise, the system would have to be infinite. There is just no way for anything to keep increasing unless it is balanced by something equivalent decreasing. This is how the laws of physics must relate to each other to form a coherent whole, there must be balance between equivalents.
This must be true not only in the laws of physics, but in any set of rules of operation of a finite system such as economics, and either in a specific system or the laws as a whole.
There are a number of laws of physics in which some quantity increases as a function of another quantity. Here are a few examples of increases in direct proportion: The gravity of some body in space, such as an asteroid or planet, increases in direct proportion to it's mass (Although this is only practically true if the size of the body of matter remains constant, since an increase in size along with mass would mean that an object on the surface of the body would be further from the center). Distance covered increases in direct proportion to velocity. The kinetic energy (or energy of position) of an object increases in direct proportion to the gravity of the planet that it is on, and also in direct proportion to it's altitude from the surface.
These proportion laws also apply to economics. Supply tends to increase in direct proportion to prices. When there is more demand for goods, and people are willing to pay higher prices, there is more incentive for manufacturers to produce it.
There are other laws that are similar in concept, but where one quantity increases in inverse proportion as a function of another quantity. Here are a few examples: Gravity increases in inverse proportion to distance (The closer to a planet or star one gets, the stronger it's gravitational becomes). Density increases in inverse proportion to volume (Matter becomes more dense when it is compressed into a lesser volume). Travel time increases in inverse proportion to velocity.
My observation is that in any given system or set of rules, opposite rules of proportion must balance out for any finite system, including the entire universe. For every law that something increases in direct proportion, if the universe is finite then there must something that increases in inverse proportion. Something cannot go on increasing, unless something equivalent is decreasing. So, the two sets of laws are opposite but must be equal.
In fact, this can be considered as an extension of Newton's principle that every action brings about an equal but opposite reaction, a simple example is a rocket being driven forward by it's thrust in the opposite direction. Every law of physics that has something increasing in direct proportion to something must be balanced by a law that has something increasing in inverse proportion to something. This principle also has an electrical application in Kirchhoff's law that if there is an electric current in an inductor (such as a coil of wire) that induces a current in another inductor, the secondary current will flow in a direction that opposes that of the original current.
I cannot see how it can be otherwise. The laws of physics that involve changes in proportion, either in some closed system or in the universe as a whole, must balance between those that increase in direct proportion and those that increase in inverse proportion. To be otherwise, the system would have to be infinite. There is just no way for anything to keep increasing unless it is balanced by something equivalent decreasing. This is how the laws of physics must relate to each other to form a coherent whole, there must be balance between equivalents.
This must be true not only in the laws of physics, but in any set of rules of operation of a finite system such as economics, and either in a specific system or the laws as a whole.
Dimensions And Machine Design
How can we know for sure that there are three dimensions of space that we inhabit, but only one of time? Time is essentially motion, having no real meaning other than motion, and this motion during the course of time takes place within the three spatial dimensions. We say that time is only one-dimensional because we have no freedom of movement in it, as we do in space.
Let's consider the diagrams detailing the construction and operation of machines with moving parts. I have noticed a simple fact, but have never seen it pointed out. Suppose a mechanical diagram is made of a machine which has moving parts, with the moving parts in a stationary condition. Then a separate diagram is made of the motion of the moving parts. If both diagrams are of the same scale and detail, the stationary diagram must contain at least three times as much information as the diagram of the motion of the moving parts.
There is no way to describe the parts and their structure in one diagram, and then their motion in a second diagram, without the stationary diagram containing at least three times as much information as the second. This dimensional order is how we experience the universe and we put our imprint on anything that we design. The most basic motion is a three-dimensional object moving in a one-dimensional straight line, and this 3:1 ratio will be reflected in any machine no matter how complex.
A simple, featureless wheel may appear to exhibit a motion that is equal in complexity to it's design, but to do so it must have a mounting and a driving mechanism. In devices like windmills, and the motion of an artillery shell, the earth with it's wind and gravity becomes essentially part of the design.
The same principle applies to electronic devices. In a simple radio transmitter, the movement is that of electrons in the antenna which produces the electromagnetic wave.
It is true that complexity is never lost or destroyed, and the complex motion of the moving parts in space will reflect the complexity of the machine. But this does not mean that the two complexities are equal because the motion in three-dimensional space of the moving parts is determined by the position and alignment of the machine.
This 3:1 ratio of information in design of the moving parts relative to the information in their movement has nothing to do with the efficiency of machines. Efficiency is simply the percentage of energy used by the machine that is turned into useful power.
The information ratio, as we could call it, of most machines with moving parts is far higher than the absolute minimum of 3:1. Structural and foundational elements are not included in the actual drive mechanism. The ratio would tend to be even higher for machines which themselves move, such as vehicles, aircraft and, boats. A significant portion of the structure of these would include parts for the support of passengers and cargo, as well as decorative elements. But the minimum 3:1 design information ratio remains a reflection of the universe as we inhabit it.
Let's consider the diagrams detailing the construction and operation of machines with moving parts. I have noticed a simple fact, but have never seen it pointed out. Suppose a mechanical diagram is made of a machine which has moving parts, with the moving parts in a stationary condition. Then a separate diagram is made of the motion of the moving parts. If both diagrams are of the same scale and detail, the stationary diagram must contain at least three times as much information as the diagram of the motion of the moving parts.
There is no way to describe the parts and their structure in one diagram, and then their motion in a second diagram, without the stationary diagram containing at least three times as much information as the second. This dimensional order is how we experience the universe and we put our imprint on anything that we design. The most basic motion is a three-dimensional object moving in a one-dimensional straight line, and this 3:1 ratio will be reflected in any machine no matter how complex.
A simple, featureless wheel may appear to exhibit a motion that is equal in complexity to it's design, but to do so it must have a mounting and a driving mechanism. In devices like windmills, and the motion of an artillery shell, the earth with it's wind and gravity becomes essentially part of the design.
The same principle applies to electronic devices. In a simple radio transmitter, the movement is that of electrons in the antenna which produces the electromagnetic wave.
It is true that complexity is never lost or destroyed, and the complex motion of the moving parts in space will reflect the complexity of the machine. But this does not mean that the two complexities are equal because the motion in three-dimensional space of the moving parts is determined by the position and alignment of the machine.
This 3:1 ratio of information in design of the moving parts relative to the information in their movement has nothing to do with the efficiency of machines. Efficiency is simply the percentage of energy used by the machine that is turned into useful power.
The information ratio, as we could call it, of most machines with moving parts is far higher than the absolute minimum of 3:1. Structural and foundational elements are not included in the actual drive mechanism. The ratio would tend to be even higher for machines which themselves move, such as vehicles, aircraft and, boats. A significant portion of the structure of these would include parts for the support of passengers and cargo, as well as decorative elements. But the minimum 3:1 design information ratio remains a reflection of the universe as we inhabit it.
Electric Charges And Negative Numbers
Let me show you a simple but vivid example of how the large-scale structure of things must be a reflection of the component "building blocks" of which it is made. Some of the most obvious examples, we have seen already. Planets orbit the sun just as the electrons in their component atoms orbit the nucleus of the atom. There is only a certain amount of information available on how to construct the large-scale structures, such as the Solar System, and this information must be contained in the building blocks of the structures so that the larger scale cannot be completely different from the nature of it's building blocks.
Another example is the building of a house out of bricks. The easiest form in which to construct a brick house is in the same as that of the bricks. There are brick houses nearby that are almost exactly the same shape as the bricks from which they are built.
Our number system actually runs in two directions, the negative as well as the positive. If we subtract 10 from 5, for example, we get -5. I find that this must ultimately be the result of the two electric charges of which the universe is composed, positive and negative. Let me explain why.
Negative numbers in our number system are used much less frequently than ordinary positive numbers. But there are two examples of where negative numbers come into play.
Electromagnetic waves which travel in space include radio waves, infrared (heat), light, ultraviolet, X-rays and, gamma rays. A wave is known as a sine wave and can be rendered on an oscilloscope as starting from a horizontal plane representing zero, reaching a maximum amplitude, decreasing back to zero at the horizontal plane, continuing to a negative maximum amplitude, and finally back to zero to begin the wave over again. The positive and negative sides of the wave are identical mirror images of one another. Aside from electromagnetic waves, this same pattern also applies to an alternating current.
The height of the wave, representing it's strength, is known as the amplitude. The length from the beginning of one wave to the next and the frequency, a function of the wavelength, is the number of waves that pass by per second.
Electromagnetic waves and electric current are, of course, related to the fundamental electric charges of positive and negative that compose the entire universe. The amplitude of the wave, including it's negative mirror image, are expressed in negative and positive numbers. The amplitude of a wave might be expressed as ranging from +6 to -6 along the cycle of the wave. The necessity of negative as well as positive numbers can thus be seen as the result of the basic building blocks of the universe being negative and positive charges.
There are other negative numbers that we are only too familiar with, that of debt and budget deficits. It may seem to be a mystery as to how this is rooted in the fundamental electric charges of the universe. But consider that financial expenditures are rooted in scarcity.
Economics only applies to what is referred to as "scarce" goods. This means simply that there may not always be enough of these scarce goods to fulfill all demand for them. Oxygen is the most vital necessity of life, yet economics does not apply to it because there is enough of it. Oxygen is thus not a scarce good. Water is the next vital necessity of life but is usually treated as a semi-scarce good, only charged for in significant quantities. Sunlight is another necessity, but is not considered as a scarce good.
But scarcity is related to complexity. There is an abundance of matter, although only a limited amount has just the right nature and configuration to supply human necessities. This is related to our complexity and to the nature of the fundamental electric charges. If there were only one electric charge then matter would hold less information and so would have to have less complexity. This would make it likely that there would be less requirement of complexity in human necessity meaning, in turn, that would be less need for expenditures and the resulting economics, and thus less of the negative numbers of debt and budget deficit.
Remember that the larger scale of things must always reflect the nature of it's building blocks.
Another example is the building of a house out of bricks. The easiest form in which to construct a brick house is in the same as that of the bricks. There are brick houses nearby that are almost exactly the same shape as the bricks from which they are built.
Our number system actually runs in two directions, the negative as well as the positive. If we subtract 10 from 5, for example, we get -5. I find that this must ultimately be the result of the two electric charges of which the universe is composed, positive and negative. Let me explain why.
Negative numbers in our number system are used much less frequently than ordinary positive numbers. But there are two examples of where negative numbers come into play.
Electromagnetic waves which travel in space include radio waves, infrared (heat), light, ultraviolet, X-rays and, gamma rays. A wave is known as a sine wave and can be rendered on an oscilloscope as starting from a horizontal plane representing zero, reaching a maximum amplitude, decreasing back to zero at the horizontal plane, continuing to a negative maximum amplitude, and finally back to zero to begin the wave over again. The positive and negative sides of the wave are identical mirror images of one another. Aside from electromagnetic waves, this same pattern also applies to an alternating current.
The height of the wave, representing it's strength, is known as the amplitude. The length from the beginning of one wave to the next and the frequency, a function of the wavelength, is the number of waves that pass by per second.
Electromagnetic waves and electric current are, of course, related to the fundamental electric charges of positive and negative that compose the entire universe. The amplitude of the wave, including it's negative mirror image, are expressed in negative and positive numbers. The amplitude of a wave might be expressed as ranging from +6 to -6 along the cycle of the wave. The necessity of negative as well as positive numbers can thus be seen as the result of the basic building blocks of the universe being negative and positive charges.
There are other negative numbers that we are only too familiar with, that of debt and budget deficits. It may seem to be a mystery as to how this is rooted in the fundamental electric charges of the universe. But consider that financial expenditures are rooted in scarcity.
Economics only applies to what is referred to as "scarce" goods. This means simply that there may not always be enough of these scarce goods to fulfill all demand for them. Oxygen is the most vital necessity of life, yet economics does not apply to it because there is enough of it. Oxygen is thus not a scarce good. Water is the next vital necessity of life but is usually treated as a semi-scarce good, only charged for in significant quantities. Sunlight is another necessity, but is not considered as a scarce good.
But scarcity is related to complexity. There is an abundance of matter, although only a limited amount has just the right nature and configuration to supply human necessities. This is related to our complexity and to the nature of the fundamental electric charges. If there were only one electric charge then matter would hold less information and so would have to have less complexity. This would make it likely that there would be less requirement of complexity in human necessity meaning, in turn, that would be less need for expenditures and the resulting economics, and thus less of the negative numbers of debt and budget deficit.
Remember that the larger scale of things must always reflect the nature of it's building blocks.
Energy And Nuclear Fusion
There is one thing about science that I have long had questions about. It is the energy that is involved in the process of nuclear fusion.
Nuclear fusion is the process which powers the sun, and other stars. A star forms when enough matter coalesces in space to crunch smaller atoms together into larger atoms by the sheer force of gravity in the center of the mass. This does not take place in planets because there is simply not enough mass. This process, while combining lighter atoms such as hydrogen into heavier ones, releases a tremendous amount of energy so that the sun or star shines.
But not only does fusion release the energy that we see as sunlight and star light, it also forces the nuclei of the smaller atoms together so that the nuclear force can take over and hold the new and heavier nucleus together by binding energy. The nuclear force, which operates only over very short range, actually converts some of the mass of the nucleus into energy so that there is more total binding energy in the larger atom that results from smaller atoms being crunched together than there was in the smaller atoms which were crunched together. This addition to the energy in the nucleus by fusion is depicted in what is known as the Binding Energy Curve.
Binding energy is necessary for atomic nuclei to exist. The nucleus of an atom consists of protons and neutrons. The protons have a positive electric charge while the neutrons are neutral, hence their name. Under the rules of electric charges that like charges repel, while opposite charges attract, the protons in the nucleus should fly apart by mutual repulsion.
The reason that this does not happen is that the binding energy overcomes this mutual electrical repulsion to hold the nucleus together. Binding energy actually comes about by the so-called nuclear force, which can operate only over very short distances, converting some of the mass of the nucleus into the energy which holds it together. But, for this to happen, it takes energy to force the lighter nuclei together so that the nuclear force can take hold.
The Binding Energy Curve is a graph of how the binding energy per nucleon in the atomic nucleus increases as we go to heavier elements, at least up to the element iron which has a total of 56 protons and neutrons in it's nucleus. A nucleon is a member particle of the nucleus, either a proton or neutron. There is a section about the binding energy curve in the article on www.wikipedia.org , "Nuclear Binding Energy".
But where does all of the energy to force the lighter nuclei together come from during the fusion process? We can see how the binding energy in the nucleus, per nucleon, increases as small atoms are crunched into successively heavier atoms. This must be because the kinetic energy in the gravitational mass of the star, which is what crunches the atoms together, is effectively transformed into binding energy by forcing the two lighter nuclei together so that the nuclear force can take over and convert some of the mass of the nucleus into binding energy.
But if the kinetic energy which crunches the atoms together is effectively transformed into the increasing binding energy per nucleon, as illustrated in the binding energy curve, where does the vast amount of energy that is released by the nuclear fusion process come from? Clearly, a tremendous amount of energy gets released or the sun would not be shining or we could not see star light being radiated by stars hundreds of light years away.
Supposedly, this released energy is the leftover binding energy. My question is how there could be all of this leftover energy if the binding energy per nucleon actually increases as we move to heavier atoms. If the energy per nucleon decreased as we moved to heavier atoms, it would be different. We could say that this missing energy in heavier atoms is what was released as sunlight. But that is not the case, the binding energy per nucleon actually increases as we move to heavier atoms so there must be some other explanation of where the energy that is released comes from. Remember the rule of physics that energy can never be created or destroyed, but only changed in form.
At the present time, the sun is in the process of crunching four hydrogen atoms into one helium atom. This process is known as the Proton-Proton Process and is common in stars which are not too large. The sunlight that we see, and other radiation from the sun, is the result of this process.
The binding energy per nucleon does decrease for elements heavier than iron, as can be seen in the binding energy curve. However, these elements are different from those up to iron because they are not formed by the ordinary fusion process. Elements heavier than iron are formed by the fusion of smaller atoms together only during the brief period when a large star is actually exploding as a supernova.
This is because formation of these heavier elements requires an input of energy, and this required energy is available from the explosion of the star. The reason for this is that the nuclear force, which is one of the basic forces of the universe and is the vehicle for nuclear binding energy, acts only over extremely short distances and these nuclei of the heaviest atoms are larger than this distance. This scenario explains why the atoms up to iron are exponentailly more common than those heavier than iron.
The article about nuclear fusion on Wikipedia explains that the binding energy curve is due to simple geometry. Large atoms have a lower surface area per volume so that each nucleon has more "neighbors" to help to bind it in. But this effect begins to diminish when the size of the nucleus starts to grow beyond the very short range of the nuclear force.
But the nuclear force itself contains no energy, it is only a vehicle for the binding energy which holds the nucleus together against the mutually repulsive force of the like-charged protons. This is similar to if we were to throw a ball into the air and it came back down with force. Gravity is one of the basic forces just as the nuclear force is. But there is no energy at all in gravity, we are only getting back the energy that we put into the ball in the first place.
The nuclear force is like a spring, which can hold energy. Binding energy is like the energy in the spring when it is compressed. Just as the spring acts as a vehicle for the energy which compresses it, but has no energy itself until energy compresses it, the nuclear force acts as a vehicle for energy from outside to be effectively transformed into the binding energy which holds a nucleus together against the mutually repulsive force of positively-charged protons.
( Note-Illustrations tend to depict both protons and neutrons as spherical in form. But my view of binding energy is that, since the neutron is made up of a mix of electric charges that balance out to zero, binding energy twists those charges within the neutron so that the negative portion of the neutron is more to the outside of it. The result is that the neutron acts as a "glue" to bind the positively-charged protons from mutually repelling, and holds the nucleus together).
So, if the kinetic energy of the gravitational mass of the star, which is what crunches the smaller atoms together into larger atoms, is then effectively transformed into the increased binding energy per nucleon as we move to heavier atoms, where does all of the energy that is released as solar radiation come from?
Another question concerns fission and fusion. The two both release energy, even though they are opposite processes. Fission is the splitting of heavy nuclei by the impact of a high-speed neutron, so that a large nucleus is split into two smaller ones and excess energy is released. The only two atoms which will undergo fission are plutonium, a man-made element which does not occur in nature, and the 235 nucleon isotope of uranium because it's nucleus, with fewer neutrons, is held together more weakly then the much more common 238 nucleon isotope of uranium.
But how can these opposite processes both release energy? It does not seem to make sense that energy is always released whether we have atoms combining together, or whether we have atoms splitting apart. If one releases energy, then shouldn't the other absorb energy?
Actually, fission of the heavier plutonium and uranium isotope 235 is releasing the energy that had to be absorbed to form it when the star which preceded the sun exploded as a supernova. So how then can even more energy be released by the fusion of light elements when no additional input of energy from a supernova is required to form them. Fusion actually releases far more energy than equivalent fission. Just where does this extra energy come from?
By the way, you may be wondering how fission can release energy either if the binding energy per nucleon gets less as we move to heavier elements in elements heavier than iron. The two lighter nuclei into which the nucleus of plutonium or uranium isotope 235 is split should together actually have more binding energy than the original nucleus, so that there would be no leftover energy to be released. But what actually happens is that the total number of nucleons is less in the two resulting lighter atoms. Several high-speed neutrons are released by the split nucleus during fission, an average of about 2.5 neutrons, and it is the kinetic energy of these neutrons, which in turn split other nuclei in a chain reaction, which mostly give us the energy released by fission.
The conclusion that I have come to is that there are two separate energy "avenues" when it comes to nuclear fusion. These are the internal and the external. The internal avenue is the one that we are familiar with already, the increased binding energy per nucleon as we move to heavier elements. This energy originally comes from the kinetic energy of successive crunches of smaller atoms into larger ones so that binding energy per nucleon increases as we move to heavier atoms.
I find that there is only one possible source of energy for the external avenue, the energy that we see released by the fusion process as sunlight and star light. The heavier the elements get, the more neutrons there tends to be relative to protons in the nucleus. This is why the increase in the weight of matter is not proportional as we move from lighter to heavier atoms.
Heavier elements are heavier out of proportion to atomic number relative to lighter elements. The most common isotope of uranium, for example, has 1.58 times as many neutrons as protons. The presence of neutrons is vital as a vehicle for binding energy to hold the nucleus together against the mutual repulsion of like-charged protons.
The reason that this preponderance of neutrons can occur is that neutrons can be formed, during the crunching process, by crunching an electron into a proton to give it the neutral charge of the neutron. There is an article titled "Electron Capture" on Wikipedia. This is sometimes referred to as K-capture because it is most likely that the electron will be captured from the K-shell of electron orbitals, which is nearest to the nucleus. In heavier atoms, there are many, many more neutrons in heavier atoms, relative to protons and electrons, and these could only have come from mergers of protons and electrons.
(Note-cosmology is beyond the scope of our discussion here and this article is about physics, rather than cosmology, but the fact that an electron and a proton can readily merge to form a third particle because the two have an identical electric charge, even though a proton is 1,836 times the mass of an electron, shows that a proton and electron are not completely separate entities but must have been originally "cut from the same cloth" shows that the sheet model of the Big Bang, in which both are different "cuts" of the sheet, to be correct).
But what happens to the energy that was in the electron in orbit around the nucleus when it is halted in it's motion and crunched into a proton to form an electron?
When I completed the recent posting "The Mystery Of Exploding Stars", which detailed my view of how it is the electron repulsion which keeps atoms separate and the eventual overcoming of this electron repulsion by the kinetic energy in the star's gravitational mass so that smaller atoms can be crunched together into larger ones, which is actually what drives the processes within stars, I began to think that it might also be electrons which might explain how vast amounts of energy can be both released and also incorporated into nuclear binding energy during the fusion process.
My conclusion is that the energy released by nuclear fusion, including sunlight and star light is the energy of the external energy avenue, and comes from the energy that was in electron orbitals after the electron is captured to be combined with a proton to create a neutron. This has got to be a tremendous amount of energy, which originally came from the Big Bang, and is not accounted for in explanations of nuclear fusion. When an electron is captured from the innermost orbital shell, one from a higher shell ultimately drops down to take it's place and this would also release energy since the higher shell would be a higher energy level.
The principle is similar to the energy in the orbit of the moon around the earth. The moon is actually moving further away from the earth, at the rate of about four centimeters per year, to a higher energy orbit. This is accomplished by drawing energy from the earth's rotation, and thus gradually making a day longer. This happens because the moon raises a tidal bulge in the earth's ocean, which is then moved forward by the earth's rotation which is faster than the moon orbits. The gravity of the tidal bulge being pulled ahead whips the moon into a slightly higher orbit even as the friction of the same process gradually slows the rotation of the earth.
What basically happens is that the energy in electron orbitals resists the crunching together of atoms by gravity by the electron repulsion of the electrons with the same negative charge. When this electron repulsion is finally overcome by the gravitational mass of the star, this energy in the electron orbital is radiated away so that we see it as sunlight or star light and the kinetic energy of the gravitational mass that was being resisted is transformed into binding energy in the nucleus. Before the crunching together, there was equilibrium, but afterward one goes along the external energy avenue and the other along the internal.
If the kinetic energy of the star's gravitational mass is transformed into binding energy when it finally overcomes the energy of electron repulsion which was resisting it, then that resistant energy in the electron orbitals must also be transformed into something. The electron resistance is because no two atoms can occupy the same quantum address, despite the pressure on them. This does not take place if an electron becomes positioned in an orbital of the new, larger, atom but only if it is one of the electrons crunched into a proton to create a neutron.
It must be explained what becomes of the energy in the electron orbital, just as it must be explained where the energy which is radiated from the sun and stars comes from, and this is the answer.
Nuclear fusion is the process which powers the sun, and other stars. A star forms when enough matter coalesces in space to crunch smaller atoms together into larger atoms by the sheer force of gravity in the center of the mass. This does not take place in planets because there is simply not enough mass. This process, while combining lighter atoms such as hydrogen into heavier ones, releases a tremendous amount of energy so that the sun or star shines.
But not only does fusion release the energy that we see as sunlight and star light, it also forces the nuclei of the smaller atoms together so that the nuclear force can take over and hold the new and heavier nucleus together by binding energy. The nuclear force, which operates only over very short range, actually converts some of the mass of the nucleus into energy so that there is more total binding energy in the larger atom that results from smaller atoms being crunched together than there was in the smaller atoms which were crunched together. This addition to the energy in the nucleus by fusion is depicted in what is known as the Binding Energy Curve.
Binding energy is necessary for atomic nuclei to exist. The nucleus of an atom consists of protons and neutrons. The protons have a positive electric charge while the neutrons are neutral, hence their name. Under the rules of electric charges that like charges repel, while opposite charges attract, the protons in the nucleus should fly apart by mutual repulsion.
The reason that this does not happen is that the binding energy overcomes this mutual electrical repulsion to hold the nucleus together. Binding energy actually comes about by the so-called nuclear force, which can operate only over very short distances, converting some of the mass of the nucleus into the energy which holds it together. But, for this to happen, it takes energy to force the lighter nuclei together so that the nuclear force can take hold.
The Binding Energy Curve is a graph of how the binding energy per nucleon in the atomic nucleus increases as we go to heavier elements, at least up to the element iron which has a total of 56 protons and neutrons in it's nucleus. A nucleon is a member particle of the nucleus, either a proton or neutron. There is a section about the binding energy curve in the article on www.wikipedia.org , "Nuclear Binding Energy".
But where does all of the energy to force the lighter nuclei together come from during the fusion process? We can see how the binding energy in the nucleus, per nucleon, increases as small atoms are crunched into successively heavier atoms. This must be because the kinetic energy in the gravitational mass of the star, which is what crunches the atoms together, is effectively transformed into binding energy by forcing the two lighter nuclei together so that the nuclear force can take over and convert some of the mass of the nucleus into binding energy.
But if the kinetic energy which crunches the atoms together is effectively transformed into the increasing binding energy per nucleon, as illustrated in the binding energy curve, where does the vast amount of energy that is released by the nuclear fusion process come from? Clearly, a tremendous amount of energy gets released or the sun would not be shining or we could not see star light being radiated by stars hundreds of light years away.
Supposedly, this released energy is the leftover binding energy. My question is how there could be all of this leftover energy if the binding energy per nucleon actually increases as we move to heavier atoms. If the energy per nucleon decreased as we moved to heavier atoms, it would be different. We could say that this missing energy in heavier atoms is what was released as sunlight. But that is not the case, the binding energy per nucleon actually increases as we move to heavier atoms so there must be some other explanation of where the energy that is released comes from. Remember the rule of physics that energy can never be created or destroyed, but only changed in form.
At the present time, the sun is in the process of crunching four hydrogen atoms into one helium atom. This process is known as the Proton-Proton Process and is common in stars which are not too large. The sunlight that we see, and other radiation from the sun, is the result of this process.
The binding energy per nucleon does decrease for elements heavier than iron, as can be seen in the binding energy curve. However, these elements are different from those up to iron because they are not formed by the ordinary fusion process. Elements heavier than iron are formed by the fusion of smaller atoms together only during the brief period when a large star is actually exploding as a supernova.
This is because formation of these heavier elements requires an input of energy, and this required energy is available from the explosion of the star. The reason for this is that the nuclear force, which is one of the basic forces of the universe and is the vehicle for nuclear binding energy, acts only over extremely short distances and these nuclei of the heaviest atoms are larger than this distance. This scenario explains why the atoms up to iron are exponentailly more common than those heavier than iron.
The article about nuclear fusion on Wikipedia explains that the binding energy curve is due to simple geometry. Large atoms have a lower surface area per volume so that each nucleon has more "neighbors" to help to bind it in. But this effect begins to diminish when the size of the nucleus starts to grow beyond the very short range of the nuclear force.
But the nuclear force itself contains no energy, it is only a vehicle for the binding energy which holds the nucleus together against the mutually repulsive force of the like-charged protons. This is similar to if we were to throw a ball into the air and it came back down with force. Gravity is one of the basic forces just as the nuclear force is. But there is no energy at all in gravity, we are only getting back the energy that we put into the ball in the first place.
The nuclear force is like a spring, which can hold energy. Binding energy is like the energy in the spring when it is compressed. Just as the spring acts as a vehicle for the energy which compresses it, but has no energy itself until energy compresses it, the nuclear force acts as a vehicle for energy from outside to be effectively transformed into the binding energy which holds a nucleus together against the mutually repulsive force of positively-charged protons.
( Note-Illustrations tend to depict both protons and neutrons as spherical in form. But my view of binding energy is that, since the neutron is made up of a mix of electric charges that balance out to zero, binding energy twists those charges within the neutron so that the negative portion of the neutron is more to the outside of it. The result is that the neutron acts as a "glue" to bind the positively-charged protons from mutually repelling, and holds the nucleus together).
So, if the kinetic energy of the gravitational mass of the star, which is what crunches the smaller atoms together into larger atoms, is then effectively transformed into the increased binding energy per nucleon as we move to heavier atoms, where does all of the energy that is released as solar radiation come from?
Another question concerns fission and fusion. The two both release energy, even though they are opposite processes. Fission is the splitting of heavy nuclei by the impact of a high-speed neutron, so that a large nucleus is split into two smaller ones and excess energy is released. The only two atoms which will undergo fission are plutonium, a man-made element which does not occur in nature, and the 235 nucleon isotope of uranium because it's nucleus, with fewer neutrons, is held together more weakly then the much more common 238 nucleon isotope of uranium.
But how can these opposite processes both release energy? It does not seem to make sense that energy is always released whether we have atoms combining together, or whether we have atoms splitting apart. If one releases energy, then shouldn't the other absorb energy?
Actually, fission of the heavier plutonium and uranium isotope 235 is releasing the energy that had to be absorbed to form it when the star which preceded the sun exploded as a supernova. So how then can even more energy be released by the fusion of light elements when no additional input of energy from a supernova is required to form them. Fusion actually releases far more energy than equivalent fission. Just where does this extra energy come from?
By the way, you may be wondering how fission can release energy either if the binding energy per nucleon gets less as we move to heavier elements in elements heavier than iron. The two lighter nuclei into which the nucleus of plutonium or uranium isotope 235 is split should together actually have more binding energy than the original nucleus, so that there would be no leftover energy to be released. But what actually happens is that the total number of nucleons is less in the two resulting lighter atoms. Several high-speed neutrons are released by the split nucleus during fission, an average of about 2.5 neutrons, and it is the kinetic energy of these neutrons, which in turn split other nuclei in a chain reaction, which mostly give us the energy released by fission.
The conclusion that I have come to is that there are two separate energy "avenues" when it comes to nuclear fusion. These are the internal and the external. The internal avenue is the one that we are familiar with already, the increased binding energy per nucleon as we move to heavier elements. This energy originally comes from the kinetic energy of successive crunches of smaller atoms into larger ones so that binding energy per nucleon increases as we move to heavier atoms.
I find that there is only one possible source of energy for the external avenue, the energy that we see released by the fusion process as sunlight and star light. The heavier the elements get, the more neutrons there tends to be relative to protons in the nucleus. This is why the increase in the weight of matter is not proportional as we move from lighter to heavier atoms.
Heavier elements are heavier out of proportion to atomic number relative to lighter elements. The most common isotope of uranium, for example, has 1.58 times as many neutrons as protons. The presence of neutrons is vital as a vehicle for binding energy to hold the nucleus together against the mutual repulsion of like-charged protons.
The reason that this preponderance of neutrons can occur is that neutrons can be formed, during the crunching process, by crunching an electron into a proton to give it the neutral charge of the neutron. There is an article titled "Electron Capture" on Wikipedia. This is sometimes referred to as K-capture because it is most likely that the electron will be captured from the K-shell of electron orbitals, which is nearest to the nucleus. In heavier atoms, there are many, many more neutrons in heavier atoms, relative to protons and electrons, and these could only have come from mergers of protons and electrons.
(Note-cosmology is beyond the scope of our discussion here and this article is about physics, rather than cosmology, but the fact that an electron and a proton can readily merge to form a third particle because the two have an identical electric charge, even though a proton is 1,836 times the mass of an electron, shows that a proton and electron are not completely separate entities but must have been originally "cut from the same cloth" shows that the sheet model of the Big Bang, in which both are different "cuts" of the sheet, to be correct).
But what happens to the energy that was in the electron in orbit around the nucleus when it is halted in it's motion and crunched into a proton to form an electron?
When I completed the recent posting "The Mystery Of Exploding Stars", which detailed my view of how it is the electron repulsion which keeps atoms separate and the eventual overcoming of this electron repulsion by the kinetic energy in the star's gravitational mass so that smaller atoms can be crunched together into larger ones, which is actually what drives the processes within stars, I began to think that it might also be electrons which might explain how vast amounts of energy can be both released and also incorporated into nuclear binding energy during the fusion process.
My conclusion is that the energy released by nuclear fusion, including sunlight and star light is the energy of the external energy avenue, and comes from the energy that was in electron orbitals after the electron is captured to be combined with a proton to create a neutron. This has got to be a tremendous amount of energy, which originally came from the Big Bang, and is not accounted for in explanations of nuclear fusion. When an electron is captured from the innermost orbital shell, one from a higher shell ultimately drops down to take it's place and this would also release energy since the higher shell would be a higher energy level.
The principle is similar to the energy in the orbit of the moon around the earth. The moon is actually moving further away from the earth, at the rate of about four centimeters per year, to a higher energy orbit. This is accomplished by drawing energy from the earth's rotation, and thus gradually making a day longer. This happens because the moon raises a tidal bulge in the earth's ocean, which is then moved forward by the earth's rotation which is faster than the moon orbits. The gravity of the tidal bulge being pulled ahead whips the moon into a slightly higher orbit even as the friction of the same process gradually slows the rotation of the earth.
What basically happens is that the energy in electron orbitals resists the crunching together of atoms by gravity by the electron repulsion of the electrons with the same negative charge. When this electron repulsion is finally overcome by the gravitational mass of the star, this energy in the electron orbital is radiated away so that we see it as sunlight or star light and the kinetic energy of the gravitational mass that was being resisted is transformed into binding energy in the nucleus. Before the crunching together, there was equilibrium, but afterward one goes along the external energy avenue and the other along the internal.
If the kinetic energy of the star's gravitational mass is transformed into binding energy when it finally overcomes the energy of electron repulsion which was resisting it, then that resistant energy in the electron orbitals must also be transformed into something. The electron resistance is because no two atoms can occupy the same quantum address, despite the pressure on them. This does not take place if an electron becomes positioned in an orbital of the new, larger, atom but only if it is one of the electrons crunched into a proton to create a neutron.
It must be explained what becomes of the energy in the electron orbital, just as it must be explained where the energy which is radiated from the sun and stars comes from, and this is the answer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)