There is much effort in the physics community to find a way to unify the basic forces of the universe such as the strong nuclear force, electromagnetism and, gravity. By the way, the so-called "strong" nuclear force is not an adjective but is distinguished from the weak nuclear force, which is a different force altogether. I have thought of a simple way to unify the forces and there is a maxim in physics that the simplest explanation for something is usually the best explanation.
The strong nuclear force operates only in the close confines of the atomic nucleus. The positive charges of the protons in the nucleus should mutually repel and thrust the nucleus apart, yet they do not. The strong nuclear force overcomes the mutual repulsion of the like-charged protons and holds the nucleus together.
However, the strong nuclear force never occurs except in the presence of neutrons. There always must be neutrally-charged neutrons present in order for the positively-charged nucleus to hold together. I am sure that this strong nuclear force results from the ability to twist around the internal charges in the neutrons so that it's negative charges are facing outward and thus holding the protons in place and the nucleus together.
As we know, both protons and neutrons consist of three quarks. The charges within the neutron balances out to zero and the proton to +1. This means that the strong nuclear force is actually electromagnetic in nature. The strong nuclear force is, as the name implies, by far the strongest of the basic forces of nature. This can be simply explained by the fact that the nucleus is so tightly packed together. As powerful as it may be, the strong force acts only over the extremely close distances within the nucleus.
The electromagnetic force is the next of the basic forces of the universe. It is far weaker than the strong nuclear force. But this relative weakness can be explained in a very simple way. The root of the electromagnetic force is the electrons in orbit around the nucleus of the atom. Although it may not seem so to us, atoms consist almost entirely of empty space. The most often used model is that of a large sports stadium. If the electron orbits are the rows of seats, the nucleus could be compared to a strawberry in the middle of the playing field.
The electric charges on the electrons are equal but opposite to the charges on the protons. However, even though electrons are far smaller than protons ( A proton or neutron is 1,836 times the mass of an electron) they are spread, in their orbits, over a far wider area. The electromagnetic force is really of the same nature as the strong nuclear force but the strong force is concentrated in the tightly packed nucleus while the electromagnetic force is spread over the vast (by comparison) outer atom as the electrons dart around in their orbits.
I am sure that if the electrons formed a solid shell around the nucleus, or they were concentrated in one place as the protons are, we would find that the two are approximately equal in value. The difference between the strong force and electromagnetism can be compared with seeing an object up close compared to at a distance. The electromagnetic force is nowhere near as strong as the strong nuclear force but in return, it operates over far greater distances.
Next, we come to gravity. It is by far the weakest force of all but it makes up for it by being cumulative so that it is the force that runs the universe on a large scale. The size scale of stars shows how weak gravity is in comparison with the strong nuclear force. As a mass of material builds up, the gravity inside it naturally becomes more and more powerful. When the point is reached where the cumulative gravity becomes strong enough to overpower the forces within the atom and force atoms together, binding energy in those atoms is released in the form of heat and light. The mass of material begins to glow from within and we have what is known as a star.
The vast amount of matter necessary to form a star illustrates the weakness of gravity in comparison with the strong nuclear force. The sun, a slightly larger than average star, is about 1.64 million km (a million miles) in diameter. To see how weak gravity is in comparison with the electromagnetic force, we need only to pick up a piece of iron or steel with a small magnet. The magnetic force is strong enough to overpower the gravity of the entire earth.
My belief is that gravity is also electromagnetic in nature. The attractive force between unlike charges is known to be slightly stronger than the repulsion between unlike charges. So with the vast amount of matter in the universe, this slight difference must be manifested in some way and it is. There is a net attraction between objects in space. This attraction is what we refer to as gravity. The force of gravity takes the exchange of strength for distance much futher than the electromagnetic force has. But the distance factor allows gravity to make up for it's inherent weakness by being cumulative so that it can eventually overpower even the strong nuclear force and a star is born.
The reason that gravity is so weak is simply that atoms are so empty. Once again, we come back to a large sports stadium as the classic model of the inside of an atom. The only really solid part of the atom is the strawberry in the middle of the playing field representing the nucleus. I think of the vastness of the stars that we can see as an inverse mirror image as the emptiness of the atoms that we cannot see. If atoms were more solid or electrons had more mass, stars would be smaller.
My hypothesis is that all three of these basic forces are really different manifestations of electromagnetism. If atoms were solid, the positive nucleus in the middle and a solid negative outer shell instead of the orbiting electrons, the strong nuclear force and electromagnetism would be roughly equal in strength. If an infinite number of atoms could then be packed together, gravity would become approximately equal to the other two.
I do not believe that these basic forces are innately woven into the universe as it may seem to us. They are the result of how atoms formed. If atoms would have come together differently when matter formed, these forces would today be different.
I have left a fourth force out of this, the weak nuclear force that breaks apart large nuclei associated with radioactivity but I believe it to be a failure of the strong nuclear force. So, let's make the universe really simple. There are two electric charges, negative and positive, opposite charges attract and like charges repel, everything else is details.
Saturday, July 21, 2012
The Scale Set
I have concluded that we have some misunderstanding about the nature of electromagnetic waves. So, I have developed an idea called the "Scale Set" to help clarify things. This misunderstanding is similar to that of the fact that we percieve the sun as moving around the earth when the opposite is actually the case.
The basis of the Scale Set is the understanding that it is not the nature of the waves themselves that cause some to be radio waves, others to be heat, some to be visible light, some to be ultraviolet and, so on. It is our scale set, which is the size of the atoms that our world and universe is composed of relative to the wavelengths of electromagnetic waves that cause the waves to fall into categories based on how their wavelength causes them to interact with matter.
There is no difference at all between X-rays and infrared (heat), between radio waves and ultraviolet or, between gamma rays and visible light, except for the wavelength of the waves. There is a near-infinity of possible wavelengths. The Scale Set is the way in which matter interacts with the various wavelengths of electromagnetic waves due to the sizes of atoms, molecules and other physical structures. It is not so much how waves affect matter but how matter interacts with waves.
In this view of reality, the waves are the constant and the matter is the variable according to it's scale set. Matter produces and interacts with waves but if the nature of atoms was different, the wavelength of wave that would interact in the same way would also be different. Again, it is a lot like the earth revolving around the sun. It seems to us that the earth is the constant but it is not.
If atoms were as big as oranges, very long low-frequency waves would replace the electromagnetic spectrum as we know it today. The waves that would operate with that scale set would be of far lower energy and could carry far less information than the waves associated with our scale set today. Vision as we know it would be impossible.
The basis of the Scale Set is the understanding that it is not the nature of the waves themselves that cause some to be radio waves, others to be heat, some to be visible light, some to be ultraviolet and, so on. It is our scale set, which is the size of the atoms that our world and universe is composed of relative to the wavelengths of electromagnetic waves that cause the waves to fall into categories based on how their wavelength causes them to interact with matter.
There is no difference at all between X-rays and infrared (heat), between radio waves and ultraviolet or, between gamma rays and visible light, except for the wavelength of the waves. There is a near-infinity of possible wavelengths. The Scale Set is the way in which matter interacts with the various wavelengths of electromagnetic waves due to the sizes of atoms, molecules and other physical structures. It is not so much how waves affect matter but how matter interacts with waves.
In this view of reality, the waves are the constant and the matter is the variable according to it's scale set. Matter produces and interacts with waves but if the nature of atoms was different, the wavelength of wave that would interact in the same way would also be different. Again, it is a lot like the earth revolving around the sun. It seems to us that the earth is the constant but it is not.
If atoms were as big as oranges, very long low-frequency waves would replace the electromagnetic spectrum as we know it today. The waves that would operate with that scale set would be of far lower energy and could carry far less information than the waves associated with our scale set today. Vision as we know it would be impossible.
The Electronic Wave Model Of Electron Orbitals
Induction is the property of an electrical current in a conductor that induces a current in another conductor, if there is relative motion between the two. This concept is familiar to anyone around Niagara Falls, where hydroelectric power is generated. There is also the self-inductance of a coil of wire in a circuit. The initial current induces a secondary current that opposes the original current. This has the effect of "smoothing out" the original current. A coil for this purpose is known as a choke coil.
In another area of basic electronics, we know that an electromagnetic wave that we call a radio wave is set up when an alternating electric current, which is a movement of electrons, is made to flow with a high frequency in a circuit. An antenna is connected to the circuit to assist the propagation of the radio waves.
I got to wondering why these same principles wouldn't also apply to the orbitals of electrons within the atom. These two fundamentals of electronics, induction and radio wave creation, take place because of the nature of electrons, and the electrons in orbit around an atomic nucleus have exactly the same properties. My reasoning is that basic electronics should be able to provide a lot of insight into what goes on in electron orbitals within atoms.
If one or more electrons moving up and down in a radio antenna will set up an electromagnetic radio wave, then what about the electrons in orbit within atoms? Isn't it logical that these electrons would create electromagnetic waves also, considering that an orbit is a form of circuit?
My hypothesis is that, just as the current in a coil of wire induces another current that opposes the original current, electrons pair up and position themselves so that the electromagnetic waves that the two produce will cancel one another out. Electrons operate in pairs, with opposite spin. Notice the strong resemblance between an orbital pair of electrons and a waveform. All waves consist of crests and troughs, when a crest meets a trough of the same wavelength the two will mutually cancel one another.
Both electron in a pair create waves, but with the crests and troughs of the waves inverted. This causes the two waves created by an electron pair to cancel one another out.
The Austrian physicist Wolfgang Pauli introduced the Pauli Exclusion Principle. This states that no two electrons in an atom can have the same quantum numbers, which define the energy levels of the electrons. The quantum numbers had been defined by another Austrian, Erwin Schrodinger.
Electron pairs are two electrons that have the same quantum numbers, but have opposite spin. I take that to mean that the two electrons in such a pair will produce electromagnetic waves that will completely cancel one another.
The two electrons position themselves to achieve this cancellation so that there will be no net wave produced because the wave produced by one electron can move the other electron in the pair, but not those in other orbitals with different quantum numbers because their waves are of a different wavelength. Electrons filling the orbitals in an atom first pair so that they match one another, and then they position themselves so that they cancel each other's wave.
Remember that our universe always seeks the lowest energy state. This is why an object falls when it is dropped. It requires less energy for it to fall than it does to maintain it in it's position. The same principle applies with all of physics. This is why electrons position themselves, being moved by the opposing electron in the pair, so that no net wave is produced. Generating electromagnetic waves requires energy, and the nature of the universe is that it always seeks the lowest energy state.
It may seem that having the shells and orbitals of electrons in atoms is, in itself, a violation of this seeking of the lowest energy state because this represents a higher energy condition than all of the electrons just crowding into the lowest shell, the one closest to the nucleus, which is also the lowest energy level for electrons in the atom. But then that would mean that the electrons would not cancel each other's waves, and the generation of waves would mean a higher energy state.
This also explains the basis of magnetism. In a magnet, there are unpaired electrons whose spin has been aligned so that the unpaired electrons all spin in one direction. Seen from one direction is the magnet's north pole and from the other the south pole. Opposite poles of two magnets strongly attract because their waves are cancelling out, thus producing a lower energy state and the energy that is saved is why the magnet is able to lift iron.
The waves of unpaired electrons with opposite spin will draw together and cancel one another in the process. Since waves are electromagnetic in nature, the two magnets with facing opposite poles will attract, just as opposite electric charges attract.
But all of this shows that electron waves must exist. Magnetism is when these waves have an influence outside the atom. Magnets can lift non-magnetized iron because the pole of the magnet, with unpaired electrons spinning in only one of two possible directions, will induce unpaired electrons in the non-magnetized iron to spin in the opposite direction and thus draw the two pieces of metal together. But the attraction between a magnet and non-magnetized iron is never as strong as that between the opposite poles of two equivalent magnets.
Now it becomes clear what happens when we try to force the like poles of two magnets together. The energy required is just the opposite of the attraction between two opposite poles, whose waves cancel out. Instead of crest meeting trough, we have crest meeting crest and trough meeting trough. Instead of cancelling out, and allowing the energy thus released to pull the two magnets together, this requires more energy to force the like poles together.
With this in mind, how do you suppose that electric motors and generators work? If we force the delocalized electrons in metal to move in one direction, by the application of a voltage or electromotive force, it must also align their directions of spin. My scenario here shows that it is actually the aligned direction of electron spin, rather then the simple movement of electrons, which makes it possible for an electric current to exert mechanical force in an electric motor. An electric generator is basically the reverse of an electric motor, with the mechanical force producing the current.
But an electric wire that was not in physical contact should not be able to exert any force on anything, regardless of current flowing through it, unless the electrons of that electric current were producing some kind of waves to transmit energy and force. If the spin of the electrons moving in the current were unaligned, they would simply cancel one another out and no net force would be exerted. Such a force, on magnetic material such as iron, could only be exerted by an electric current if the movement of the current also aligned the spin of the electrons, just as in a stationary magnet.
The same concept does not apply to a light bulb, or to the production of heat by electricity, because that energy is the result of the moving electrons losing energy by resistance in the wire. The lost energy has to go somewhere, and it shows up as heat.
But all of this shows that the Electronic Wave Model Of Electron Orbitals must be correct. We can see that these waves must be produced by electrons in their orbitals but, in non-magnets, we do not see any evidence of such waves. We know that electrons operate in pairs, with opposite spin, and the normal lack of evidence of such waves outside the atom can only mean that they cancel out.
This model explains why elements that have even numbers of both protons and electrons are more stable than those that have odd numbers. Even numbers of electrons in an atom are well-known to produce more chemical stability. It is because even numbers are necessary for complete pairing, and pairing is necessary for this wave cancellation. This concept also helps to explain why electron orbitals in atoms like to be either empty, full or, half full. It also explain why matter is said to have a wave nature, as well as a matter nature.
Metals differ from non-metals in that a number of atoms share their outer-shell electrons among themselves. These are known as delocalized electrons, and the group of sharing atoms is known as a crystal. In some metals, most notably iron, these shared electrons can be made to align their motion, rather than cancelling out the effect of their charges. We then see the effect known as magnetism, and why magnetism is related to electricity which is the movement of the electrons..
The electromagnetic waves that must be generated by an electron moving in an atomic orbital, just as an alternating current in a circuit and an antenna produces a wave, would not be readily detectable by us. The wave produced by a single electron, even if it was not cancelled out by it's opposing pair electron, would be exceedingly faint in the space beyond. If the wave had been produced by an unpaired electron, it would then be cancelled by the waves from other unpaired electrons.
While there must be alignment by electron pairs, there would be no such alignment with other electrons either within the same atoms or in other atoms. This means that, even if the waves did not cancel, they would dissipate out of phase and would not reinforce one another in materials other than magnets.
Furthermore we, and any equipment that we build and use, must necessarily be made of matter. These "electron orbital waves", as we will refer to them, would be of extremely high frequency and short wavelength. X-rays and gamma rays pass right through matter because the atom is actually mostly empty space, and these waves are fine enough to go right through at least the atoms of some elements.
Remember that electromagnetic waves are reflected by matter which is about the same size as the wavelength of the waves, meaning that waves of extraordinarily short wavelength can pass right through the electron orbitals of atoms. Waves from electron orbitals would be of far shorter wavelength than this, making most of these waves undetectable by any equipment made of matter.
I cannot see how these electron orbital waves would not exist. This explains the nature of electron orbitals in atoms ideally, and fits with the properties of electrons in basic electronics.
In another area of basic electronics, we know that an electromagnetic wave that we call a radio wave is set up when an alternating electric current, which is a movement of electrons, is made to flow with a high frequency in a circuit. An antenna is connected to the circuit to assist the propagation of the radio waves.
I got to wondering why these same principles wouldn't also apply to the orbitals of electrons within the atom. These two fundamentals of electronics, induction and radio wave creation, take place because of the nature of electrons, and the electrons in orbit around an atomic nucleus have exactly the same properties. My reasoning is that basic electronics should be able to provide a lot of insight into what goes on in electron orbitals within atoms.
If one or more electrons moving up and down in a radio antenna will set up an electromagnetic radio wave, then what about the electrons in orbit within atoms? Isn't it logical that these electrons would create electromagnetic waves also, considering that an orbit is a form of circuit?
My hypothesis is that, just as the current in a coil of wire induces another current that opposes the original current, electrons pair up and position themselves so that the electromagnetic waves that the two produce will cancel one another out. Electrons operate in pairs, with opposite spin. Notice the strong resemblance between an orbital pair of electrons and a waveform. All waves consist of crests and troughs, when a crest meets a trough of the same wavelength the two will mutually cancel one another.
Both electron in a pair create waves, but with the crests and troughs of the waves inverted. This causes the two waves created by an electron pair to cancel one another out.
The Austrian physicist Wolfgang Pauli introduced the Pauli Exclusion Principle. This states that no two electrons in an atom can have the same quantum numbers, which define the energy levels of the electrons. The quantum numbers had been defined by another Austrian, Erwin Schrodinger.
Electron pairs are two electrons that have the same quantum numbers, but have opposite spin. I take that to mean that the two electrons in such a pair will produce electromagnetic waves that will completely cancel one another.
The two electrons position themselves to achieve this cancellation so that there will be no net wave produced because the wave produced by one electron can move the other electron in the pair, but not those in other orbitals with different quantum numbers because their waves are of a different wavelength. Electrons filling the orbitals in an atom first pair so that they match one another, and then they position themselves so that they cancel each other's wave.
Remember that our universe always seeks the lowest energy state. This is why an object falls when it is dropped. It requires less energy for it to fall than it does to maintain it in it's position. The same principle applies with all of physics. This is why electrons position themselves, being moved by the opposing electron in the pair, so that no net wave is produced. Generating electromagnetic waves requires energy, and the nature of the universe is that it always seeks the lowest energy state.
It may seem that having the shells and orbitals of electrons in atoms is, in itself, a violation of this seeking of the lowest energy state because this represents a higher energy condition than all of the electrons just crowding into the lowest shell, the one closest to the nucleus, which is also the lowest energy level for electrons in the atom. But then that would mean that the electrons would not cancel each other's waves, and the generation of waves would mean a higher energy state.
This also explains the basis of magnetism. In a magnet, there are unpaired electrons whose spin has been aligned so that the unpaired electrons all spin in one direction. Seen from one direction is the magnet's north pole and from the other the south pole. Opposite poles of two magnets strongly attract because their waves are cancelling out, thus producing a lower energy state and the energy that is saved is why the magnet is able to lift iron.
The waves of unpaired electrons with opposite spin will draw together and cancel one another in the process. Since waves are electromagnetic in nature, the two magnets with facing opposite poles will attract, just as opposite electric charges attract.
But all of this shows that electron waves must exist. Magnetism is when these waves have an influence outside the atom. Magnets can lift non-magnetized iron because the pole of the magnet, with unpaired electrons spinning in only one of two possible directions, will induce unpaired electrons in the non-magnetized iron to spin in the opposite direction and thus draw the two pieces of metal together. But the attraction between a magnet and non-magnetized iron is never as strong as that between the opposite poles of two equivalent magnets.
Now it becomes clear what happens when we try to force the like poles of two magnets together. The energy required is just the opposite of the attraction between two opposite poles, whose waves cancel out. Instead of crest meeting trough, we have crest meeting crest and trough meeting trough. Instead of cancelling out, and allowing the energy thus released to pull the two magnets together, this requires more energy to force the like poles together.
With this in mind, how do you suppose that electric motors and generators work? If we force the delocalized electrons in metal to move in one direction, by the application of a voltage or electromotive force, it must also align their directions of spin. My scenario here shows that it is actually the aligned direction of electron spin, rather then the simple movement of electrons, which makes it possible for an electric current to exert mechanical force in an electric motor. An electric generator is basically the reverse of an electric motor, with the mechanical force producing the current.
But an electric wire that was not in physical contact should not be able to exert any force on anything, regardless of current flowing through it, unless the electrons of that electric current were producing some kind of waves to transmit energy and force. If the spin of the electrons moving in the current were unaligned, they would simply cancel one another out and no net force would be exerted. Such a force, on magnetic material such as iron, could only be exerted by an electric current if the movement of the current also aligned the spin of the electrons, just as in a stationary magnet.
The same concept does not apply to a light bulb, or to the production of heat by electricity, because that energy is the result of the moving electrons losing energy by resistance in the wire. The lost energy has to go somewhere, and it shows up as heat.
But all of this shows that the Electronic Wave Model Of Electron Orbitals must be correct. We can see that these waves must be produced by electrons in their orbitals but, in non-magnets, we do not see any evidence of such waves. We know that electrons operate in pairs, with opposite spin, and the normal lack of evidence of such waves outside the atom can only mean that they cancel out.
This model explains why elements that have even numbers of both protons and electrons are more stable than those that have odd numbers. Even numbers of electrons in an atom are well-known to produce more chemical stability. It is because even numbers are necessary for complete pairing, and pairing is necessary for this wave cancellation. This concept also helps to explain why electron orbitals in atoms like to be either empty, full or, half full. It also explain why matter is said to have a wave nature, as well as a matter nature.
Metals differ from non-metals in that a number of atoms share their outer-shell electrons among themselves. These are known as delocalized electrons, and the group of sharing atoms is known as a crystal. In some metals, most notably iron, these shared electrons can be made to align their motion, rather than cancelling out the effect of their charges. We then see the effect known as magnetism, and why magnetism is related to electricity which is the movement of the electrons..
The electromagnetic waves that must be generated by an electron moving in an atomic orbital, just as an alternating current in a circuit and an antenna produces a wave, would not be readily detectable by us. The wave produced by a single electron, even if it was not cancelled out by it's opposing pair electron, would be exceedingly faint in the space beyond. If the wave had been produced by an unpaired electron, it would then be cancelled by the waves from other unpaired electrons.
While there must be alignment by electron pairs, there would be no such alignment with other electrons either within the same atoms or in other atoms. This means that, even if the waves did not cancel, they would dissipate out of phase and would not reinforce one another in materials other than magnets.
Furthermore we, and any equipment that we build and use, must necessarily be made of matter. These "electron orbital waves", as we will refer to them, would be of extremely high frequency and short wavelength. X-rays and gamma rays pass right through matter because the atom is actually mostly empty space, and these waves are fine enough to go right through at least the atoms of some elements.
Remember that electromagnetic waves are reflected by matter which is about the same size as the wavelength of the waves, meaning that waves of extraordinarily short wavelength can pass right through the electron orbitals of atoms. Waves from electron orbitals would be of far shorter wavelength than this, making most of these waves undetectable by any equipment made of matter.
I cannot see how these electron orbital waves would not exist. This explains the nature of electron orbitals in atoms ideally, and fits with the properties of electrons in basic electronics.
Our Dual Charge Universe
There is a basic fact concerning the universe which underlies everything that is. It is also one of the primary ways that the universe can be defined as what it is, in comparison and contrast to what it might have been.
Our universe is a dual-charge universe. Everything about the universe revolves around the fact that there are two electric charges, which are equal and opposite. We know these two charges as negative and positive. Like charges always repel one another, just as opposite charges attract.
These two charges are at the most basic level of physical reality in the universe. My cosmological theory defines space as a vast checkerboard of alternating infinitesimal negative and positive charges, structured in multiple dimensions. Matter is defined as any arrangement of the two charges other than this alternating checkerboard.
Have you ever wondered exactly what a dimension is? We know that it is a direction that we can move in, but there must be a deeper level at which it can be defined.
It is these two fundamental electric charges that define what a dimension in space is. In our universe, one dimension is basically a line. This is because there are two electric charges forming space, and two points are joined by a line.
What about our number system, the 1,2,3,....? We use numbers to represent the reality that we inhabit. Do you notice that the sequence of numbers forms a line? This is no coincidence, it is a manifestation of the dual-charge universe.
There can be geometric shapes in multiple dimensions, but these shapes are composed of the same one-dimensional lines. No matter how we look at it, reality is a reflection of the fact that the universe is composed of two electric charges that are equal and opposite.
Suppose that there were more than two charges composing the universe, and that these charges were equal and opposite in the same way that our negative and positive charges are.
If there was only one charge in the universe, a dimension would be a point rather than a line. There could be no matter as we know it, because matter is concentrations of charges held together by opposite charge attraction with it's positioning governed by both attraction and like-charge repulsion. There would be no electromagnetic waves because there would be no matter to move in order to create waves. Even if there was, there would be no waves unless a charge attracted or repeled other electric charges when it moved. Neither could there be a number system like ours.
The nature of a single-charge universe would depend on the relationship between the like charges. If they mutually repelled, the universe would be continuously expanding but getting more sparse. If they mutually attracted, the universe would contract into nothing.
If there were three equal and opposite charges, what we perceive as two dimensions would be only one dimension. Each dimension would be a plane, rather than a line. Beings inhabiting a three-charge universe would be unaware of any of this because a one-dimensional line, as we know it, would be non-existent and inconceivable. They could no more conceive of a line being a dimension as we can conceive of a point being a dimension. Their number system would necessarily have sideways numbers, in a way that we cannot easily imagine.
If there happened to be four equal and opposite charges composing the universe, a dimension would be what we perceive here as three dimensions. Although, once again, any beings inhabiting that universe would be unaware of it. This would make the universe less intricate than ours, if it limited the number of spatial dimensions, but would open fantastic possibilities with regard to different varieties of matter.
There would be, or at least could be, electromagnetic waves in any universe with two or more electric charges. Any such waves would follow the dimensions of that universe. Basic electromagnetic waves in our universe occupy two dimensions, because we have two charges. But such two-dimensional waves as ours could not exist in a universe of three electric charges. Waves must always involve all of the electric
Our universe is a dual-charge universe. Everything about the universe revolves around the fact that there are two electric charges, which are equal and opposite. We know these two charges as negative and positive. Like charges always repel one another, just as opposite charges attract.
These two charges are at the most basic level of physical reality in the universe. My cosmological theory defines space as a vast checkerboard of alternating infinitesimal negative and positive charges, structured in multiple dimensions. Matter is defined as any arrangement of the two charges other than this alternating checkerboard.
Have you ever wondered exactly what a dimension is? We know that it is a direction that we can move in, but there must be a deeper level at which it can be defined.
It is these two fundamental electric charges that define what a dimension in space is. In our universe, one dimension is basically a line. This is because there are two electric charges forming space, and two points are joined by a line.
What about our number system, the 1,2,3,....? We use numbers to represent the reality that we inhabit. Do you notice that the sequence of numbers forms a line? This is no coincidence, it is a manifestation of the dual-charge universe.
There can be geometric shapes in multiple dimensions, but these shapes are composed of the same one-dimensional lines. No matter how we look at it, reality is a reflection of the fact that the universe is composed of two electric charges that are equal and opposite.
Suppose that there were more than two charges composing the universe, and that these charges were equal and opposite in the same way that our negative and positive charges are.
If there was only one charge in the universe, a dimension would be a point rather than a line. There could be no matter as we know it, because matter is concentrations of charges held together by opposite charge attraction with it's positioning governed by both attraction and like-charge repulsion. There would be no electromagnetic waves because there would be no matter to move in order to create waves. Even if there was, there would be no waves unless a charge attracted or repeled other electric charges when it moved. Neither could there be a number system like ours.
The nature of a single-charge universe would depend on the relationship between the like charges. If they mutually repelled, the universe would be continuously expanding but getting more sparse. If they mutually attracted, the universe would contract into nothing.
If there were three equal and opposite charges, what we perceive as two dimensions would be only one dimension. Each dimension would be a plane, rather than a line. Beings inhabiting a three-charge universe would be unaware of any of this because a one-dimensional line, as we know it, would be non-existent and inconceivable. They could no more conceive of a line being a dimension as we can conceive of a point being a dimension. Their number system would necessarily have sideways numbers, in a way that we cannot easily imagine.
If there happened to be four equal and opposite charges composing the universe, a dimension would be what we perceive here as three dimensions. Although, once again, any beings inhabiting that universe would be unaware of it. This would make the universe less intricate than ours, if it limited the number of spatial dimensions, but would open fantastic possibilities with regard to different varieties of matter.
There would be, or at least could be, electromagnetic waves in any universe with two or more electric charges. Any such waves would follow the dimensions of that universe. Basic electromagnetic waves in our universe occupy two dimensions, because we have two charges. But such two-dimensional waves as ours could not exist in a universe of three electric charges. Waves must always involve all of the electric
The Weight Hypothesis
SEEKING ZERO ENERGY
This has nothing to do with diet. It is well-known that matter in the universe seeks the lowest-energy state possible by way of gravity. When an object is in the air, it falls to the ground because it would require less energy to maintain it there than it would in the air. Planets and stars form into a spherical shape because that is the shape with the lowest surface are per volume and thus the lowest energy level.
I have been thinking about why the universe is unable to acheive a gravitational zero energy state. If matter could get to where gravity was trying to pull it in the seeking of a zero energy state, that matter would be weightless. Gravity should actually have put itself out of business and ceased to be a force by now but the way atoms are constructed makes a gravitational zero energy universe impossible.
Matter is mutually exclusive, two objects cannot occupy the same space, but gravity goes right through matter. My conclusion is that if matter could pass through other matter, it would be possible to attain a zero energy universe.
ELECTRON REPULSION
It is possible for two galaxies to collide and pass through each other without a single star collision. Atoms are also mostly empty space and it may seem that they should be able to pass through each other as well but cannot due to what is known as "electron repulsion".
Gravity attracts two objects together. The average distance between the negative and positive charges in one of the objects to the negative and positive charges in the other object is the same. But as the two objects get very close together, that no longer remains true.
The atoms in both objects have negatively-charged electrons on the outside. This means that when the objects reach very close quarters, the electrons repulse each other and the attractive force between the two ceases. A state of equilibrium is reached and the two objects remain as close as they can get but without merging into or passing through each other.
Despite what we perceive, two objects do not actually touch due to electron repulsion. The positive and negative charges in the atoms of two objects can be compared to positive and negative layers. Both objects have a negative layer on the outside. The thickness of the layers is insignificant in comparison with the distance between the objects until they get extremely close and the outer layer of each object repulses it's counterpart. An equilibrium is reached and the objects cannot get and closer or pass through each other.
If the positive and negative charges in atoms were random, this would not be the case. Neither is it the case when matter comes in contact with antimatter, which has the positively-charged particles on the outside.
WEIGHT
Weight is not the same thing as mass, which is fixed and is the amount of matter in an object. Weight is variable and is the result of gravity acting on a mass. Weight is therefore the result of kinetic energy, or energy of position. This hypothesis revolves around the idea that weight is the manifestation of the fact that matter is able to get only part of the way to where it is being directed by gravity.
The gravitational attraction between two objects is between the centers of the masses but due to electron repulsion, moving objects must come to a halt upon contact with another object. The manifestation of this blocked motion of objects during the movement toward a gravitational zero energy universe is weight. The basic meaning of weight is that an object is trying to fall but is blocked from doing so by electron repulsion. This is why a falling body is weightless and weight is not manifested until the call of gravity is blocked.
In an ideal universe, there would be mass but no weight. All weight is an symptom of an imperfect universe, a manifestation of the fact that gravity and the structure of atoms work in opposition to each other. Gravity keeps trying to get to a zero-energy universe but is blocked from doing so.
This has nothing to do with diet. It is well-known that matter in the universe seeks the lowest-energy state possible by way of gravity. When an object is in the air, it falls to the ground because it would require less energy to maintain it there than it would in the air. Planets and stars form into a spherical shape because that is the shape with the lowest surface are per volume and thus the lowest energy level.
I have been thinking about why the universe is unable to acheive a gravitational zero energy state. If matter could get to where gravity was trying to pull it in the seeking of a zero energy state, that matter would be weightless. Gravity should actually have put itself out of business and ceased to be a force by now but the way atoms are constructed makes a gravitational zero energy universe impossible.
Matter is mutually exclusive, two objects cannot occupy the same space, but gravity goes right through matter. My conclusion is that if matter could pass through other matter, it would be possible to attain a zero energy universe.
ELECTRON REPULSION
It is possible for two galaxies to collide and pass through each other without a single star collision. Atoms are also mostly empty space and it may seem that they should be able to pass through each other as well but cannot due to what is known as "electron repulsion".
Gravity attracts two objects together. The average distance between the negative and positive charges in one of the objects to the negative and positive charges in the other object is the same. But as the two objects get very close together, that no longer remains true.
The atoms in both objects have negatively-charged electrons on the outside. This means that when the objects reach very close quarters, the electrons repulse each other and the attractive force between the two ceases. A state of equilibrium is reached and the two objects remain as close as they can get but without merging into or passing through each other.
Despite what we perceive, two objects do not actually touch due to electron repulsion. The positive and negative charges in the atoms of two objects can be compared to positive and negative layers. Both objects have a negative layer on the outside. The thickness of the layers is insignificant in comparison with the distance between the objects until they get extremely close and the outer layer of each object repulses it's counterpart. An equilibrium is reached and the objects cannot get and closer or pass through each other.
If the positive and negative charges in atoms were random, this would not be the case. Neither is it the case when matter comes in contact with antimatter, which has the positively-charged particles on the outside.
WEIGHT
Weight is not the same thing as mass, which is fixed and is the amount of matter in an object. Weight is variable and is the result of gravity acting on a mass. Weight is therefore the result of kinetic energy, or energy of position. This hypothesis revolves around the idea that weight is the manifestation of the fact that matter is able to get only part of the way to where it is being directed by gravity.
The gravitational attraction between two objects is between the centers of the masses but due to electron repulsion, moving objects must come to a halt upon contact with another object. The manifestation of this blocked motion of objects during the movement toward a gravitational zero energy universe is weight. The basic meaning of weight is that an object is trying to fall but is blocked from doing so by electron repulsion. This is why a falling body is weightless and weight is not manifested until the call of gravity is blocked.
In an ideal universe, there would be mass but no weight. All weight is an symptom of an imperfect universe, a manifestation of the fact that gravity and the structure of atoms work in opposition to each other. Gravity keeps trying to get to a zero-energy universe but is blocked from doing so.
The Nature Of Weight And Weightlessness
When an object, such as a rock, is floating in open space it can be moved with minimal effort. This condition is known as "weightlessness" because the object is moved so easily in comparision with the effort that would be required if it were on the surface of the earth and thus had weight. The weight of any object is variable, unlike it's mass which is fixed.
The weight of an object is actually defined by the force of gravity upon it's mass. As long as atoms are in contact, there is no such thing as absolute weightlessness. Weight is the manifestation of the unsuccessful seeking of a zero energy condition of matter.
Gravity is prevented from placing matter as it would like by the electron repulsion of atoms in contact. The like charges of negatively-charged electrons in the atoms prevent gravity from moving them any closer. However, in an object in space subject to no significant exterior gravitational attractions, the internal gravity from all directions will balance out and produce a net weight of zero. In other words weightlessness, or more properly net weightlessness.
But what about the earth? Doesn't our planet fit the definition of a weightless object in space? The earth might have ten trillion times the mass of our rock in space but ten trillion multiplied by a weight of zero is still zero. The gravitational forces toward the center of the earth certainly balance out. This enables the gravity of the moon to strengthen earth's magnetic field as I described in "The Moon And Earth's Magnetic Field" on this blog.
The earth is within the sun's gravitational field but this is expressed in a perpendicular direction by the earth's orbit around the sun. So if the earth as a whole must be weightless, why can't we push it and move it? Maybe we could push it further from the sun to solve global warming.
The trouble is that inward forces within a gravitational system cannot move the system even though it may be weightless as a whole. If we push on the earth with a pole, we are part of the same gravitational system as the earth. The earth pushes back on the pole and the net force is zero. The earth does not move.
Likewise, an object falling in earth's gravity cannot exert a force on the earth as weightless because it becomes a part of the same gravitational system. The falling object does exert a force on the earth but if it is being pulled to earth by gravity, it becomes part of the same gravitational system. However, it is true that the earth and the falling object do combine their momentum.
If we could push against an outside body against the earth, it could conceivably be moved in it's orbit but then we have to consider that the body we would be pushing against would have a mass of it's own and this mass would exert a gravitational force on the earth so that the earth would no longer be weightless. The earth's mass would also exert a gravitational force on the outside body, giving it weight so that we could push against it in our effort to move the earth but this would also give the earth's weight, negating our efforts to move it as a weightless object.
Even though the earth is a weightless object in space, except for the direction of it's orbit around the sun due to the sun's gravity, it could only be moved by a pole of some kind pushing it from an external body such as the moon or a planet, which would also be moved by the effort in proportion to it's mass relative to that of the earth. It could also be moved by an object fired into space from earth, as long as the object exerted a force on the ground and was not a rocket, which is a self-contained gravitational unit. But then, the ratio of the object's mass to the earth's mass would determine how much the earth would move.
The weight of an object is actually defined by the force of gravity upon it's mass. As long as atoms are in contact, there is no such thing as absolute weightlessness. Weight is the manifestation of the unsuccessful seeking of a zero energy condition of matter.
Gravity is prevented from placing matter as it would like by the electron repulsion of atoms in contact. The like charges of negatively-charged electrons in the atoms prevent gravity from moving them any closer. However, in an object in space subject to no significant exterior gravitational attractions, the internal gravity from all directions will balance out and produce a net weight of zero. In other words weightlessness, or more properly net weightlessness.
But what about the earth? Doesn't our planet fit the definition of a weightless object in space? The earth might have ten trillion times the mass of our rock in space but ten trillion multiplied by a weight of zero is still zero. The gravitational forces toward the center of the earth certainly balance out. This enables the gravity of the moon to strengthen earth's magnetic field as I described in "The Moon And Earth's Magnetic Field" on this blog.
The earth is within the sun's gravitational field but this is expressed in a perpendicular direction by the earth's orbit around the sun. So if the earth as a whole must be weightless, why can't we push it and move it? Maybe we could push it further from the sun to solve global warming.
The trouble is that inward forces within a gravitational system cannot move the system even though it may be weightless as a whole. If we push on the earth with a pole, we are part of the same gravitational system as the earth. The earth pushes back on the pole and the net force is zero. The earth does not move.
Likewise, an object falling in earth's gravity cannot exert a force on the earth as weightless because it becomes a part of the same gravitational system. The falling object does exert a force on the earth but if it is being pulled to earth by gravity, it becomes part of the same gravitational system. However, it is true that the earth and the falling object do combine their momentum.
If we could push against an outside body against the earth, it could conceivably be moved in it's orbit but then we have to consider that the body we would be pushing against would have a mass of it's own and this mass would exert a gravitational force on the earth so that the earth would no longer be weightless. The earth's mass would also exert a gravitational force on the outside body, giving it weight so that we could push against it in our effort to move the earth but this would also give the earth's weight, negating our efforts to move it as a weightless object.
Even though the earth is a weightless object in space, except for the direction of it's orbit around the sun due to the sun's gravity, it could only be moved by a pole of some kind pushing it from an external body such as the moon or a planet, which would also be moved by the effort in proportion to it's mass relative to that of the earth. It could also be moved by an object fired into space from earth, as long as the object exerted a force on the ground and was not a rocket, which is a self-contained gravitational unit. But then, the ratio of the object's mass to the earth's mass would determine how much the earth would move.
The Chemical-Nuclear-Astronomical Relationship
I have noticed a simple relationship between chemistry, nuclear reactions and astronomical bodies that I have never seen documented.
CHEMICAL AND NUCLEAR ENERGY
First, let's review the difference between chemical and nuclear energy. A material, such as wood, has bonds between the atoms holding it together. These bonds involve the electrons in orbit around the atomic nuclei in the material. Generally, organic substances are held together by so-called covalent bonds, in which neighboring atoms share electrons.
Metals are also held together by shared electrons among a group of atoms. This is why metals tend to conduct electricity, these loose electrons can be made to flow in one direction by the application of a voltage pressure to the metal. Non-metallic inorganic materials are held together by simple ionic bonds because one atom loses an electron to a neighboring atom.
Since the positive charges in the atomic nucleus are usually balanced by the negative charges in the electrons orbitting the nucleus, this means that the losing atom becomes positively charged and the gaining atom, negatively charged. Thus, the two atoms attract each other and are bound together.
These types of inter-atomic bond are known as chemical bonds because they involve only the electrons in orbit around the nuclei of atoms and not the nuclei themselves. These chemical bonds contain energy. If the bond is somehow broken, such as by heat, the energy that was in the bond holding the atoms together is released, also in the form of heat, which causes still more bonds to be broken and to release their energy. This is how burning takes place.
In chemical reactions, the nuclei of the atoms are not affected at all. However, the positively charged nuclei of atoms also contain energy, in fact far more energy than the chemical bonds. The positively-charged protons in an atomic nucleus are held together by a powerful so-called "binding energy".
If the nucleus can be split, such as by a fast-moving neutron, this tremendous binding energy is released in the form of heat. This is the basis of nuclear fission in atomic bombs and reactors. Just as in simple burning, the released energy and neutrons from a split nuclei go on to split other nuclei and sustain the reaction.
There is another nuclear process, fusion, which operates by crushing together two or more small atoms to form a larger atom but where there is less binding energy required than in the smaller atoms together. Thus, the extra binding energy is released. This is how stars operate. Energy is released by both burning, a chemical process, and nuclear fusion. As a general rule, the energy from fusion is about a thousand million (a billion in North America) times that from chemical processes.
SPHERIZATION IN ASTRONOMICAL BODIES
Now, consider the structure of an object such as a rock. The atoms in the rock are held together by chemical bonds, forming the rock's structure. The rock also has gravity, but in a small rock or boulder, this internal gravity is insignificant in determining the structure of the rock.
Gravity is a very weak force compared with the other basic forces of nature but it is cumulative, meaning that it adds up as mass accumulates. If we begin adding matter to the rock, eventually we reach a point in which it's gravity becomes more important in the rock's structure than the chemical bonds between atoms. At this point, the rock and the matter that has been added to it begin to take the shape of a sphere.
This is because a sphere is the geometric shape in three dimensions requiring the least energy to maintain. Most of the asteroids in the solar system orbitting between Mars and Jupiter are not spherical in shape. But the largest asteroids, such as Ceres and Vesta, are spherical or close to it. And, of course, larger bodies such as the earth, moon and, sun are inevitably spherical in shape. As a general rule, there is no body to be seen a thousand kilometers or more in diameter that is not spherical in shape.
The shape of such astronomical bodies reveals the most important factor in it's structure. If chemical bonds between atoms predominate, the shape will be non-spherical. When there is enough matter together so that gravity becomes more important than the chemical structural bonds, the shape will become spherical.
THE FUSION THRESHOLD
Now suppose we keep adding still more matter to our now-spherical body in space. Let's keep adding millions and millions of times the matter it had when it first took on a spherical shape. As we add more and more mass, the internal gravity of the body keeps building and building. Eventually something will happen, the body will begin to glow with a light of it's own. A star has been born.
The body became a sphere when the cumulative gravity was strong enough to become more important than the chemical structural bonds in forming the body's structure. The process of nuclear fusion begins and forms a star when the internal gravity of the body becomes so strong that it overpowers the electromagnetic force in the atoms at the center of the star and crushes them together to form larger atoms out of smaller ones. This releases binding energy in the form of heat and light to continue the process and form a star.
THE CHEMICAL-NUCLEAR-ASTRONOMICAL RELATIONSHIP
What I am pointing out in this relationship is that the order of magnitude in the energy obtained from nuclear, as opposed to chemical fuels is roughly the same as the order of magnitude between the amount of mass necessary to reach the spherization threshold to the amount of mass necessary to reach the fusion threshold and create a star. I have never before seen this pointed out and it makes the different branches of science seem much more inter-connected than ever before.
CHEMICAL AND NUCLEAR ENERGY
First, let's review the difference between chemical and nuclear energy. A material, such as wood, has bonds between the atoms holding it together. These bonds involve the electrons in orbit around the atomic nuclei in the material. Generally, organic substances are held together by so-called covalent bonds, in which neighboring atoms share electrons.
Metals are also held together by shared electrons among a group of atoms. This is why metals tend to conduct electricity, these loose electrons can be made to flow in one direction by the application of a voltage pressure to the metal. Non-metallic inorganic materials are held together by simple ionic bonds because one atom loses an electron to a neighboring atom.
Since the positive charges in the atomic nucleus are usually balanced by the negative charges in the electrons orbitting the nucleus, this means that the losing atom becomes positively charged and the gaining atom, negatively charged. Thus, the two atoms attract each other and are bound together.
These types of inter-atomic bond are known as chemical bonds because they involve only the electrons in orbit around the nuclei of atoms and not the nuclei themselves. These chemical bonds contain energy. If the bond is somehow broken, such as by heat, the energy that was in the bond holding the atoms together is released, also in the form of heat, which causes still more bonds to be broken and to release their energy. This is how burning takes place.
In chemical reactions, the nuclei of the atoms are not affected at all. However, the positively charged nuclei of atoms also contain energy, in fact far more energy than the chemical bonds. The positively-charged protons in an atomic nucleus are held together by a powerful so-called "binding energy".
If the nucleus can be split, such as by a fast-moving neutron, this tremendous binding energy is released in the form of heat. This is the basis of nuclear fission in atomic bombs and reactors. Just as in simple burning, the released energy and neutrons from a split nuclei go on to split other nuclei and sustain the reaction.
There is another nuclear process, fusion, which operates by crushing together two or more small atoms to form a larger atom but where there is less binding energy required than in the smaller atoms together. Thus, the extra binding energy is released. This is how stars operate. Energy is released by both burning, a chemical process, and nuclear fusion. As a general rule, the energy from fusion is about a thousand million (a billion in North America) times that from chemical processes.
SPHERIZATION IN ASTRONOMICAL BODIES
Now, consider the structure of an object such as a rock. The atoms in the rock are held together by chemical bonds, forming the rock's structure. The rock also has gravity, but in a small rock or boulder, this internal gravity is insignificant in determining the structure of the rock.
Gravity is a very weak force compared with the other basic forces of nature but it is cumulative, meaning that it adds up as mass accumulates. If we begin adding matter to the rock, eventually we reach a point in which it's gravity becomes more important in the rock's structure than the chemical bonds between atoms. At this point, the rock and the matter that has been added to it begin to take the shape of a sphere.
This is because a sphere is the geometric shape in three dimensions requiring the least energy to maintain. Most of the asteroids in the solar system orbitting between Mars and Jupiter are not spherical in shape. But the largest asteroids, such as Ceres and Vesta, are spherical or close to it. And, of course, larger bodies such as the earth, moon and, sun are inevitably spherical in shape. As a general rule, there is no body to be seen a thousand kilometers or more in diameter that is not spherical in shape.
The shape of such astronomical bodies reveals the most important factor in it's structure. If chemical bonds between atoms predominate, the shape will be non-spherical. When there is enough matter together so that gravity becomes more important than the chemical structural bonds, the shape will become spherical.
THE FUSION THRESHOLD
Now suppose we keep adding still more matter to our now-spherical body in space. Let's keep adding millions and millions of times the matter it had when it first took on a spherical shape. As we add more and more mass, the internal gravity of the body keeps building and building. Eventually something will happen, the body will begin to glow with a light of it's own. A star has been born.
The body became a sphere when the cumulative gravity was strong enough to become more important than the chemical structural bonds in forming the body's structure. The process of nuclear fusion begins and forms a star when the internal gravity of the body becomes so strong that it overpowers the electromagnetic force in the atoms at the center of the star and crushes them together to form larger atoms out of smaller ones. This releases binding energy in the form of heat and light to continue the process and form a star.
THE CHEMICAL-NUCLEAR-ASTRONOMICAL RELATIONSHIP
What I am pointing out in this relationship is that the order of magnitude in the energy obtained from nuclear, as opposed to chemical fuels is roughly the same as the order of magnitude between the amount of mass necessary to reach the spherization threshold to the amount of mass necessary to reach the fusion threshold and create a star. I have never before seen this pointed out and it makes the different branches of science seem much more inter-connected than ever before.
Polarity, Turbulence And, Liquification
I was watching some turbulence in flowing water when something occurred to me that I had never read before. Eddys are the small whirlpools that form when flowing water is in contact with still or slower-moving water. Eddys also occur in the air when the wind encounters some obstacle.
I realized that this phenomenon only occurs when the molecules of the fluid or gas are polar. Atoms are symmetrical all around but most molecules are not. This means that the electric charge one one side of the molecule is more positive and the other side more negative. This polarity causes attraction or repulsion between molecules and when an attraction forms between still and moving molecules, the moving molecule is diverted in it's path and the still molecule is pulled along. The repulsion and attraction to other molecules by the pair creates a circular motion which is the beginning of an eddy.
A fluid, whether liquid or gas, will not form eddys if it consists of atoms alone and not molecules. This is because the atoms are symmetrical and without polarity eddys cannot get started. At the boundary between the moving and still water, millions of small eddys get started until they merge into few larger ones. Such an eddy is a compromise between the moving and still waters or the faster-moving and slower-moving waters.
Air is actually polar but not in the same way as water. Water has polarity because it's molecule consists of one atom of oxygen and two of hydrogen. Air is polar and so creates eddys because the oxygen and nitrogen in the air consists of two atoms together instead of one. In other words, these two gases in the air are in a "diatomic" state.
Thus, different part of the molecule display a different electric charge, Without this assymmetry of the oxygen and nitrogen in the air and thus polarity, tornados or hurricanes could not form, since these are really only large eddys. This could not happen if the oxygen and nitrogen in the air was not diatomic.
I noticed something else that I had never seen referred to anywhere. There is a direct relationship between the strength of the polarity of molecules of gas and the temperature at which the gas will liquify.
In any diatomic, which means molecules that pair together such as two oxygens or two nitrogens, or any gas that exists in molecular, as opposed to atomic, form, some degree of polarity will be inevitable. Polarity is simply the difference in electric charge from one side of the molecule to the other because it is generally impossible for a molecule to be symmetrical all around in the same way that a single atom is. Polarity in molecules is similar in concept to the ionic bonds between atoms which causes them to form molecules. One atom loses an electron to another, giving the losing one a positive charge and the gaining one a negative charge, which creates an electric bond between them.
As the temperature drops, the absolute temperature at which a gas will liquify is proportional to the difference in electrical charge between one side of the molecule and the other. To liquify at all at normal pressure, a gas must be molecular in structure. One that is composed of atoms instead of molecules will not liquify. A gas with strong polarity, such as water vapor (vapour), will liquify at high temperatures. This is why we can have liquid water at normal temperatures. A gas with weak polarity, such as oxygen, will require very low temperatures to become liquid.
Liquid is basically what a gas does when the temperature is low enough so that the polar attraction between molecules can overcome the motion of the molecules caused by heat energy. Pressure is a factor too, low pressure favors (favours) the molecules remaining as a gas while high pressure favours (favors) the formation of a liquid. Oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen and, helium can all be liquified with enough cold and pressure. A simple molecule consisting of two like atoms together such as the gases of the atmosphere form (except carbon dioxide) has a different charge at one of the ends of the molecule than it does on a side of the molecule.
Thus when the gas condenses into a liquid, the molecules are like capsules fitting together end to side. What I want to do is to begin expressing the strength of polar bonds in terms of the degrees of temperature at which it breaks at the standard pressure of one atmosphere. There are supposedly three states of matter: solids, liquids and, gases. This is the most basic of chemistry. But it may be time for a reevaluation of the states of matter. I find it to be somewhat more complex with regard to liquids.
Unlike the other two states of matter, liquid cannot exist independently in open space. The formation of a liquid requires both gravity from below and pressure from above. Only two of the approximately one hundred chemical elements, mercury and bromine, are liquid at room temperature.
Water, for example, will be either a gas or a solid, water vapor (vapour) or ice, without such pressure. Ice is known to exist on the moon, but not liquid water because that would require pressure from above and the moon has almost no atmosphere to provide such pressure.
Comets are composed mostly of water ice, the water on earth almost certainly originated with comets. But the water can only exist as a solid and a gas before it is brought within the atmospheric pressure on earth. The body of the comet is solid ice, but a comet also manifests a "tail" as it nears the sun in it's orbit. This is caused by pressure from what is known as the "solar wind", the stream of particles from the sun. This pushes some of the water molecules back as vapor, which reflects sunlight and causes the appearance of the comet's tail. Notice that the tail of a comet always points away from the sun.
This leads me to believe that solids and gases are the primary states of matter, while liquids can be described as a secondary state. Matter will be a solid if the gravitational pull is strong enough so that there is no space left between the atoms or molecules or if there are chemical or structural bonds to hold it together. The matter will form a gas if the gravitational bonds are less, but there is no provision for liquids which can best be described as a transitional state of matter between gases and solids with special requirements such as gravity from below and pressure from above.
There is no better illustration of this than boiling water. Usually, water only evaporates from it's surface. But, if it is heated to a certain point, water will begin to evaporate from the entire volume of the water rather than just the surface. This is known as the boiling point, and the familiar bubbling is water evaporating from below the surface.
The boiling point of water is very much a function of atmospheric pressure. As anyone who has lived on mountains knows, water will boil at a lower temperature at higher altitude. Since there is no atmopsheric pressure in outer space, this means that the temperature at which ice will melt and water will vaporize is the same temperature, and thus there is no liquid water or any other liquid, in space.
Thus, it makes sense that a true state of matter, or at least a primary state of matter, must be able to exist in open space and this does not include liquids.
I realized that this phenomenon only occurs when the molecules of the fluid or gas are polar. Atoms are symmetrical all around but most molecules are not. This means that the electric charge one one side of the molecule is more positive and the other side more negative. This polarity causes attraction or repulsion between molecules and when an attraction forms between still and moving molecules, the moving molecule is diverted in it's path and the still molecule is pulled along. The repulsion and attraction to other molecules by the pair creates a circular motion which is the beginning of an eddy.
A fluid, whether liquid or gas, will not form eddys if it consists of atoms alone and not molecules. This is because the atoms are symmetrical and without polarity eddys cannot get started. At the boundary between the moving and still water, millions of small eddys get started until they merge into few larger ones. Such an eddy is a compromise between the moving and still waters or the faster-moving and slower-moving waters.
Air is actually polar but not in the same way as water. Water has polarity because it's molecule consists of one atom of oxygen and two of hydrogen. Air is polar and so creates eddys because the oxygen and nitrogen in the air consists of two atoms together instead of one. In other words, these two gases in the air are in a "diatomic" state.
Thus, different part of the molecule display a different electric charge, Without this assymmetry of the oxygen and nitrogen in the air and thus polarity, tornados or hurricanes could not form, since these are really only large eddys. This could not happen if the oxygen and nitrogen in the air was not diatomic.
I noticed something else that I had never seen referred to anywhere. There is a direct relationship between the strength of the polarity of molecules of gas and the temperature at which the gas will liquify.
In any diatomic, which means molecules that pair together such as two oxygens or two nitrogens, or any gas that exists in molecular, as opposed to atomic, form, some degree of polarity will be inevitable. Polarity is simply the difference in electric charge from one side of the molecule to the other because it is generally impossible for a molecule to be symmetrical all around in the same way that a single atom is. Polarity in molecules is similar in concept to the ionic bonds between atoms which causes them to form molecules. One atom loses an electron to another, giving the losing one a positive charge and the gaining one a negative charge, which creates an electric bond between them.
As the temperature drops, the absolute temperature at which a gas will liquify is proportional to the difference in electrical charge between one side of the molecule and the other. To liquify at all at normal pressure, a gas must be molecular in structure. One that is composed of atoms instead of molecules will not liquify. A gas with strong polarity, such as water vapor (vapour), will liquify at high temperatures. This is why we can have liquid water at normal temperatures. A gas with weak polarity, such as oxygen, will require very low temperatures to become liquid.
Liquid is basically what a gas does when the temperature is low enough so that the polar attraction between molecules can overcome the motion of the molecules caused by heat energy. Pressure is a factor too, low pressure favors (favours) the molecules remaining as a gas while high pressure favours (favors) the formation of a liquid. Oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen and, helium can all be liquified with enough cold and pressure. A simple molecule consisting of two like atoms together such as the gases of the atmosphere form (except carbon dioxide) has a different charge at one of the ends of the molecule than it does on a side of the molecule.
Thus when the gas condenses into a liquid, the molecules are like capsules fitting together end to side. What I want to do is to begin expressing the strength of polar bonds in terms of the degrees of temperature at which it breaks at the standard pressure of one atmosphere. There are supposedly three states of matter: solids, liquids and, gases. This is the most basic of chemistry. But it may be time for a reevaluation of the states of matter. I find it to be somewhat more complex with regard to liquids.
Unlike the other two states of matter, liquid cannot exist independently in open space. The formation of a liquid requires both gravity from below and pressure from above. Only two of the approximately one hundred chemical elements, mercury and bromine, are liquid at room temperature.
Water, for example, will be either a gas or a solid, water vapor (vapour) or ice, without such pressure. Ice is known to exist on the moon, but not liquid water because that would require pressure from above and the moon has almost no atmosphere to provide such pressure.
Comets are composed mostly of water ice, the water on earth almost certainly originated with comets. But the water can only exist as a solid and a gas before it is brought within the atmospheric pressure on earth. The body of the comet is solid ice, but a comet also manifests a "tail" as it nears the sun in it's orbit. This is caused by pressure from what is known as the "solar wind", the stream of particles from the sun. This pushes some of the water molecules back as vapor, which reflects sunlight and causes the appearance of the comet's tail. Notice that the tail of a comet always points away from the sun.
This leads me to believe that solids and gases are the primary states of matter, while liquids can be described as a secondary state. Matter will be a solid if the gravitational pull is strong enough so that there is no space left between the atoms or molecules or if there are chemical or structural bonds to hold it together. The matter will form a gas if the gravitational bonds are less, but there is no provision for liquids which can best be described as a transitional state of matter between gases and solids with special requirements such as gravity from below and pressure from above.
There is no better illustration of this than boiling water. Usually, water only evaporates from it's surface. But, if it is heated to a certain point, water will begin to evaporate from the entire volume of the water rather than just the surface. This is known as the boiling point, and the familiar bubbling is water evaporating from below the surface.
The boiling point of water is very much a function of atmospheric pressure. As anyone who has lived on mountains knows, water will boil at a lower temperature at higher altitude. Since there is no atmopsheric pressure in outer space, this means that the temperature at which ice will melt and water will vaporize is the same temperature, and thus there is no liquid water or any other liquid, in space.
Thus, it makes sense that a true state of matter, or at least a primary state of matter, must be able to exist in open space and this does not include liquids.
Transparency And Color
You have probably wondered, at some point, why some materials are transparent, notably water and glass, while most are opaque and do not allow light to pass through.
The fact that light slows down when it goes from a medium with a low refractive index, such as air, to one with a higher refractive index, such as glass or water, means that lenses can be made and an object under water is not actually located where our eyes perceive it. But that opens another question; if the speed of light is so fixed by relativity theory, then how can it slow down when it enters another medium?
Air is transparent to light for a very simple reason. It is sparse enough to allow light to pass right through. Air is actually heavier than water by molecule, water has a molecular mass of 10 while the diatomic oxygen that is in the air has a mass of 16 and diatomic nitrogen of 14. But yet when water molecules are held together by the hydrogen bonding that occurs, it forms the familiar liquid and is 800 times as heavy as air at sea level. This means that the molecules in the air must actually occupy only about 1/1200 of the total space.
But then how does glass allow light to pass right through? The answer to this is also simple. Glass is a crystal in it's molecular structure. The chemistry of glass is actually similar to sand but it's molecules are lined up in rows and light can pass through the gaps between the rows since atoms are roughly spherical in shape. Imagine cans of soda stacked up with the cans aligned, light can pass through the gaps between the cans.
I must disagree with the popular idea in physics that light slows down when it goes from air into glass or into water, that would violate relativity. My explanation for this apparent deceleration of light that makes lenses possible is that while light is passing through the gaps between atoms in a crystal structure, there will not be a straight line for the light all the way through a thickness of thousands of millions of atoms For this to happen the glass would have to be at a temperature of absolute zero to eliminate molecular shifting due to heat.
Since the gaps between the atoms cannot possibly form straight lines all the way through, lot of refecting off the sides of the gaps is involved when light passes through a dense, transparent medium. This makes the path of the light longer than it would be otherwise and this makes light seem to slow down as it passes through glass. The index of refraction of a transparent medium is thus a function of the length of the path light must take to get through it. This also means that even clear glass must scatter light passing through it to a considerable extent but this scattering is over such a small scale that our eyes cannot detect it.
The reason that a glass prism splits light into it's component colors (colours) now becomes apparent. Ordinary white light is actually a mixture of all visible colours (colors) with that of the longest wavelength being red and that of the shortest wavelength being blue. The light of the shorter wavelength is more "compact" than the longer wavelengths of light. This means that in relation to blue light, the gap between the atoms will be relatively wider than it will be to the red light. So blue will do more reflecting off the sides of the gap to keep it in course while with the longer-wavelength red light, the gap will act more as a waveguide with less reflection involved.
The result is that the shorter the wavelength, the more the light will be bent by the structure of the glass and so white light will be broken down into it's component colours (colors). This will happen only if the white light is in a concise beam and it enters the glass at an angle to the surface.
What about water? It is also transparent. The reason is it's polar structure. A water molecule, consisting of an atom of oxygen joined to two atoms of hydrogen has an unsymmetrical structure. This makes it more negative on one side and more postitive on the other side so that water molecules line up negative side to positive side. This forms, in effect, a crystal structure with gaps between the molecules through which light can pass in the same way as it does through glass and other crystal materials.
By the way, you may notice that the dissolution of air in water does not affect it's transparency at all. You can see through clear shallow water regardless of how little or how much oxygen or CO2 is dissolved in it. If this were not so, the transparency of water would be affected by it's temperature since this determines the volume of gases that can dissolve in it. The reason is that atoms of dissolved atmospheric gases fit into the matrix of the structure of the atoms in the water. This supports the findings that I described in "The Collision Imbalance And The Evaporation-Dissolution Exchange" on my meteorology blog. If the atoms of dissolved gases were floating around in the water without fitting in to it's "crystal" structure, it would affect the transparency of the water.
Finally, we come to the colors (colours) of opaque (non-transparent) objects. Objects without the crystalline atomic structure required for transparency will not allow light to pass through. But it handles various wavelengths of light differently. The color (colour) of an object that we see is the result of the size and the space between it's surface atoms. That light with wavelengths short enough to fit between the atoms will be swallowed up by the object and will not be seen. The wavelength of light that we see will be that which the surface atoms reflect without absorbing or scattering.
The fact that light slows down when it goes from a medium with a low refractive index, such as air, to one with a higher refractive index, such as glass or water, means that lenses can be made and an object under water is not actually located where our eyes perceive it. But that opens another question; if the speed of light is so fixed by relativity theory, then how can it slow down when it enters another medium?
Air is transparent to light for a very simple reason. It is sparse enough to allow light to pass right through. Air is actually heavier than water by molecule, water has a molecular mass of 10 while the diatomic oxygen that is in the air has a mass of 16 and diatomic nitrogen of 14. But yet when water molecules are held together by the hydrogen bonding that occurs, it forms the familiar liquid and is 800 times as heavy as air at sea level. This means that the molecules in the air must actually occupy only about 1/1200 of the total space.
But then how does glass allow light to pass right through? The answer to this is also simple. Glass is a crystal in it's molecular structure. The chemistry of glass is actually similar to sand but it's molecules are lined up in rows and light can pass through the gaps between the rows since atoms are roughly spherical in shape. Imagine cans of soda stacked up with the cans aligned, light can pass through the gaps between the cans.
I must disagree with the popular idea in physics that light slows down when it goes from air into glass or into water, that would violate relativity. My explanation for this apparent deceleration of light that makes lenses possible is that while light is passing through the gaps between atoms in a crystal structure, there will not be a straight line for the light all the way through a thickness of thousands of millions of atoms For this to happen the glass would have to be at a temperature of absolute zero to eliminate molecular shifting due to heat.
Since the gaps between the atoms cannot possibly form straight lines all the way through, lot of refecting off the sides of the gaps is involved when light passes through a dense, transparent medium. This makes the path of the light longer than it would be otherwise and this makes light seem to slow down as it passes through glass. The index of refraction of a transparent medium is thus a function of the length of the path light must take to get through it. This also means that even clear glass must scatter light passing through it to a considerable extent but this scattering is over such a small scale that our eyes cannot detect it.
The reason that a glass prism splits light into it's component colors (colours) now becomes apparent. Ordinary white light is actually a mixture of all visible colours (colors) with that of the longest wavelength being red and that of the shortest wavelength being blue. The light of the shorter wavelength is more "compact" than the longer wavelengths of light. This means that in relation to blue light, the gap between the atoms will be relatively wider than it will be to the red light. So blue will do more reflecting off the sides of the gap to keep it in course while with the longer-wavelength red light, the gap will act more as a waveguide with less reflection involved.
The result is that the shorter the wavelength, the more the light will be bent by the structure of the glass and so white light will be broken down into it's component colours (colors). This will happen only if the white light is in a concise beam and it enters the glass at an angle to the surface.
What about water? It is also transparent. The reason is it's polar structure. A water molecule, consisting of an atom of oxygen joined to two atoms of hydrogen has an unsymmetrical structure. This makes it more negative on one side and more postitive on the other side so that water molecules line up negative side to positive side. This forms, in effect, a crystal structure with gaps between the molecules through which light can pass in the same way as it does through glass and other crystal materials.
By the way, you may notice that the dissolution of air in water does not affect it's transparency at all. You can see through clear shallow water regardless of how little or how much oxygen or CO2 is dissolved in it. If this were not so, the transparency of water would be affected by it's temperature since this determines the volume of gases that can dissolve in it. The reason is that atoms of dissolved atmospheric gases fit into the matrix of the structure of the atoms in the water. This supports the findings that I described in "The Collision Imbalance And The Evaporation-Dissolution Exchange" on my meteorology blog. If the atoms of dissolved gases were floating around in the water without fitting in to it's "crystal" structure, it would affect the transparency of the water.
Finally, we come to the colors (colours) of opaque (non-transparent) objects. Objects without the crystalline atomic structure required for transparency will not allow light to pass through. But it handles various wavelengths of light differently. The color (colour) of an object that we see is the result of the size and the space between it's surface atoms. That light with wavelengths short enough to fit between the atoms will be swallowed up by the object and will not be seen. The wavelength of light that we see will be that which the surface atoms reflect without absorbing or scattering.
Color Interpretation
Here is a riddle: What do you see all around you every time you open your eyes yet cannot be described with words? The answer is color (colour). (Note- to avoid excessive use of parenthesis, I will alternate the two global spellings of colour (color)).
Our language gives us no way to describe color. We can state it as a wavelength of electromagnetic wave but it cannot be described in itself. Try to think of a way to describe your favorite (favourite) colour to someone who can only see in black and white. It is not possible.
Of course, we know that colors do not really exist outside of our interpretation. In the universe of inanimate matter and space, colour is essentially meaningless except as a wavelength of electromagnetic wave. So, here is my question: If we are unable to describe color by use of our language, then how do we know that we all experience the different colours in the same way?
The answer is that we don't. It is very likely that if you are with someone looking at something red in color, while you both agree that it is red, you might see it as the other person sees green and the other person may see it as you see blue. Possibly, each of you may see it in a way that the other does not see any colour at all.
Since color cannot be described with words, there is no way to know for sure. We do know that so many other sensory inputs are experienced by people differently and also that the spectrum of visible light is not the same for all persons. So why should we not think that we experience colours differently?
The interpretation of color is in the brain and not in the eye so transplanting eyes from one person to another will not shed any light on it. But someday in the future when transplanting parts of the brain becomes possible, we can expect that such a transplant will reveal that we experience colour differently.
Our language gives us no way to describe color. We can state it as a wavelength of electromagnetic wave but it cannot be described in itself. Try to think of a way to describe your favorite (favourite) colour to someone who can only see in black and white. It is not possible.
Of course, we know that colors do not really exist outside of our interpretation. In the universe of inanimate matter and space, colour is essentially meaningless except as a wavelength of electromagnetic wave. So, here is my question: If we are unable to describe color by use of our language, then how do we know that we all experience the different colours in the same way?
The answer is that we don't. It is very likely that if you are with someone looking at something red in color, while you both agree that it is red, you might see it as the other person sees green and the other person may see it as you see blue. Possibly, each of you may see it in a way that the other does not see any colour at all.
Since color cannot be described with words, there is no way to know for sure. We do know that so many other sensory inputs are experienced by people differently and also that the spectrum of visible light is not the same for all persons. So why should we not think that we experience colours differently?
The interpretation of color is in the brain and not in the eye so transplanting eyes from one person to another will not shed any light on it. But someday in the future when transplanting parts of the brain becomes possible, we can expect that such a transplant will reveal that we experience colour differently.
Gravitational Chemistry
There is a factor in spacecraft design and planetary dynamics that I thought of but cannot find any reference to so, I will post it here.
Gravity makes atoms heavier. It does not change the mass of atoms but does change their weight. Suppose a piece of metal was floating in space relatively close to the sun. Radiation from the sun would impart energy to the atoms in the metal. This would cause those atoms to move faster and so cause the metal to melt when the speed of the atoms reached the metal's melting point.
Now suppose that the metal was on a planet, rather than floating in space, but was an equal distance from the sun and received an equal amount of solar energy. The solar radiation falling on the metal would be exactly the same and would impart the same amount of energy to the atoms of the metal. But this time, the atoms would be heavier due to the gravity of the planet. The atoms would not have more mass but would have more weight on the planet. The melting point of the piece of metal is based on the speed of the atoms reaching the threshold of moving too fast for the inter-atomic bonds in the metal holding to hold the atoms in a solid structure. So when that speed is reached, the metal melts.
But we must make a distinction here between the energy imparted to the atoms and their actual speed that results from that energy. Logic tells us that the metal melts when the atoms in it reach a certain speed, regardless of the energy required to get them to that speed. This means, of course, that it must require more energy to get the piece of metal to melt when it is within a stronger gravitational field. It requires more energy to get atoms to move at a certain speed when those atoms are heavier.
In this example, the mass and inter-atomic bonds of the metal are constant and only their weight due to gravity is variable. This factor has apparently not been noticed so far simply because it has not been very relevant. Gravity is rightly ignored in nuclear reactions because it is so insignificant. It has been ignored in chemical reactions thus far because when two chemicals come together and react, both must be in the same gravitational field. The modern science of chemistry was developed mostly in the Nineteenth Century when space travel and weightlessness was not considered.
The melting points of metals and other substances listed in science texts would better be described as the melting points within earth's gravitational field. Gravitational chemistry will naturally be more of a factor with heavier metals, where gravity is proportionally more important, than with lighter ones. This will make the weight of the atoms more important relative to the strength of the chemical bonds between atoms in heavier metals. It will be of most importance in a heavy metal with relatively weak inter-atomic bonds.
This hypothesis forces us to consider how we define heat. Heat is the actual energy of the atoms in motion but not their actual velocity. Heat energy causes atoms to move faster but the weight, by gravity, of the atoms is also a factor. I find no evidence that this has been considered up to now.
When we test the ability of a spacecraft component to withstand heat on earth, we must understand that it will require less heat energy to bring it to the melting point in the weightlessness of space. This can also be a factor in planetary dynamics. If a planet has seasons or has an eccentric orbit, closer to the sun at some times than at others, the melting of an icy surface on the planet will be affected by the gravity of the planet. Gravitational chemistry will probably not be much concerned with chemical reactions as it will be with melting and freezing points. There is another idea in the scientific community with the same name as this but it not the same thing at all.
Gravity makes atoms heavier. It does not change the mass of atoms but does change their weight. Suppose a piece of metal was floating in space relatively close to the sun. Radiation from the sun would impart energy to the atoms in the metal. This would cause those atoms to move faster and so cause the metal to melt when the speed of the atoms reached the metal's melting point.
Now suppose that the metal was on a planet, rather than floating in space, but was an equal distance from the sun and received an equal amount of solar energy. The solar radiation falling on the metal would be exactly the same and would impart the same amount of energy to the atoms of the metal. But this time, the atoms would be heavier due to the gravity of the planet. The atoms would not have more mass but would have more weight on the planet. The melting point of the piece of metal is based on the speed of the atoms reaching the threshold of moving too fast for the inter-atomic bonds in the metal holding to hold the atoms in a solid structure. So when that speed is reached, the metal melts.
But we must make a distinction here between the energy imparted to the atoms and their actual speed that results from that energy. Logic tells us that the metal melts when the atoms in it reach a certain speed, regardless of the energy required to get them to that speed. This means, of course, that it must require more energy to get the piece of metal to melt when it is within a stronger gravitational field. It requires more energy to get atoms to move at a certain speed when those atoms are heavier.
In this example, the mass and inter-atomic bonds of the metal are constant and only their weight due to gravity is variable. This factor has apparently not been noticed so far simply because it has not been very relevant. Gravity is rightly ignored in nuclear reactions because it is so insignificant. It has been ignored in chemical reactions thus far because when two chemicals come together and react, both must be in the same gravitational field. The modern science of chemistry was developed mostly in the Nineteenth Century when space travel and weightlessness was not considered.
The melting points of metals and other substances listed in science texts would better be described as the melting points within earth's gravitational field. Gravitational chemistry will naturally be more of a factor with heavier metals, where gravity is proportionally more important, than with lighter ones. This will make the weight of the atoms more important relative to the strength of the chemical bonds between atoms in heavier metals. It will be of most importance in a heavy metal with relatively weak inter-atomic bonds.
This hypothesis forces us to consider how we define heat. Heat is the actual energy of the atoms in motion but not their actual velocity. Heat energy causes atoms to move faster but the weight, by gravity, of the atoms is also a factor. I find no evidence that this has been considered up to now.
When we test the ability of a spacecraft component to withstand heat on earth, we must understand that it will require less heat energy to bring it to the melting point in the weightlessness of space. This can also be a factor in planetary dynamics. If a planet has seasons or has an eccentric orbit, closer to the sun at some times than at others, the melting of an icy surface on the planet will be affected by the gravity of the planet. Gravitational chemistry will probably not be much concerned with chemical reactions as it will be with melting and freezing points. There is another idea in the scientific community with the same name as this but it not the same thing at all.
Electron Repulsion And Density
A basic mystery of chemistry and physics class is why some materials are more dense than others. Density is simply the mass of a substance per unit of volume. All matter consists of identical protons, neutrons and, electrons so why should not all matter have the same density?
A chunk of matter will be composed of either more smaller atoms, if it is a lighter element such as aluminum, or fewer larger atoms, if it is a heavier element such as lead. So if there are either more smaller atoms or fewer larger atoms, what is the difference? Both should have about the same mass because they will have about the same number of nucleons and electrons.
Suppose we have a box of given dimensions. Atoms are known to be spherical in shape. If we fill the box with either many smaller spheres or fewer larger spheres, the weight of the box will end up about the same. Spheres are shape-inefficient when placed together because space is rectangular but this inefficiency is the same regardless of the size of the spheres we are dealing with.
So why then are elements composed of larger atoms, like uranium, usually more dense that those composed of smaller atoms, like magnesium or aluminum? Although this is not a strict rule.
The fact that heavier elements have more neutrons in their nuclei is certainly a factor in the increased density of heavier elements. But those elements composed of larger atoms are still more dense even if we compare densities by atomic weight, rather than by atomic number. The atomic number of an element is simply the number of protons in the nucleus and the atomic weight is the number of protons plus neutrons in the nucleus.
The binding energy curve is another factor in the comparative density of the elements. Lighter elements have more and more mass per nucleon (protons or neutrons in the nucleus) missing, as we move to the next heaviest element, that apparently should be there until we come to the element iron. From there, successively heavier elements have less and less mass missing per nucleon.
But even if we take this into account, elements composed of larger atoms are still more dense. How can we explain this density disparity?
Now, let's consider the concept of electron repulsion. We know that atoms are by far mostly empty space. So if we place a book on a table, why does the book not pass right through the table? The simple answer is that the outer layer of electrons in the table's outer atoms and the outer layer of electrons in the book's outer atoms are both negatively-charged. Since like charges repel, the book and the table are prevented from merging into each other and the book remains at rest on the table instead of merging into it.
The thought occurred to me that this electron repulsion can also explain the disparity in density between elements composed of more smaller atoms and those composed of fewer larger atoms. If we have blocks of lead and aluminum with equal mass, there is essentially the same total number of protons or neutrons and electrons in each.
But there is another factor. The more smaller aluminum atoms have far more atomic surface area than the few larger lead atoms. This can only mean that there is more electron repulsion within the block of aluminum than in the block of iron. This explains why the block of aluminum of the same mass will be larger, hence less dense, than the block of iron.
The atoms of aluminum have more surface area and thus more total force pushing each other apart than do the iron atoms. We could say that electron repulsion within a material is generally proportional to the total surface area of all atoms within the material. My conclusion is that, with all other factors being equal, the surface area of a mass of material will be proportional to the total surface area of all of it's atoms or molecules.
The density of a material is more complex than this. The actual sizes of the atoms varies with their charge and the number of electrons in the outer shell. In compounds, the atomic surface area will vary according to whether the bond between the atoms is ionic or covalent.
But I think that most of the mystery as to why a kg of iron is denser than a kg of aluminum, since they both contain about the same number of nucleons and electrons, can be explained by the same electron repulsion that holds a book on a table.
A chunk of matter will be composed of either more smaller atoms, if it is a lighter element such as aluminum, or fewer larger atoms, if it is a heavier element such as lead. So if there are either more smaller atoms or fewer larger atoms, what is the difference? Both should have about the same mass because they will have about the same number of nucleons and electrons.
Suppose we have a box of given dimensions. Atoms are known to be spherical in shape. If we fill the box with either many smaller spheres or fewer larger spheres, the weight of the box will end up about the same. Spheres are shape-inefficient when placed together because space is rectangular but this inefficiency is the same regardless of the size of the spheres we are dealing with.
So why then are elements composed of larger atoms, like uranium, usually more dense that those composed of smaller atoms, like magnesium or aluminum? Although this is not a strict rule.
The fact that heavier elements have more neutrons in their nuclei is certainly a factor in the increased density of heavier elements. But those elements composed of larger atoms are still more dense even if we compare densities by atomic weight, rather than by atomic number. The atomic number of an element is simply the number of protons in the nucleus and the atomic weight is the number of protons plus neutrons in the nucleus.
The binding energy curve is another factor in the comparative density of the elements. Lighter elements have more and more mass per nucleon (protons or neutrons in the nucleus) missing, as we move to the next heaviest element, that apparently should be there until we come to the element iron. From there, successively heavier elements have less and less mass missing per nucleon.
But even if we take this into account, elements composed of larger atoms are still more dense. How can we explain this density disparity?
Now, let's consider the concept of electron repulsion. We know that atoms are by far mostly empty space. So if we place a book on a table, why does the book not pass right through the table? The simple answer is that the outer layer of electrons in the table's outer atoms and the outer layer of electrons in the book's outer atoms are both negatively-charged. Since like charges repel, the book and the table are prevented from merging into each other and the book remains at rest on the table instead of merging into it.
The thought occurred to me that this electron repulsion can also explain the disparity in density between elements composed of more smaller atoms and those composed of fewer larger atoms. If we have blocks of lead and aluminum with equal mass, there is essentially the same total number of protons or neutrons and electrons in each.
But there is another factor. The more smaller aluminum atoms have far more atomic surface area than the few larger lead atoms. This can only mean that there is more electron repulsion within the block of aluminum than in the block of iron. This explains why the block of aluminum of the same mass will be larger, hence less dense, than the block of iron.
The atoms of aluminum have more surface area and thus more total force pushing each other apart than do the iron atoms. We could say that electron repulsion within a material is generally proportional to the total surface area of all atoms within the material. My conclusion is that, with all other factors being equal, the surface area of a mass of material will be proportional to the total surface area of all of it's atoms or molecules.
The density of a material is more complex than this. The actual sizes of the atoms varies with their charge and the number of electrons in the outer shell. In compounds, the atomic surface area will vary according to whether the bond between the atoms is ionic or covalent.
But I think that most of the mystery as to why a kg of iron is denser than a kg of aluminum, since they both contain about the same number of nucleons and electrons, can be explained by the same electron repulsion that holds a book on a table.
Scientific Perspectives And Facts
I find it very helpful in trying to understand the world and the universe to express things in a scale that we can relate to. This is very helpful in gaining a sense of perspective on those areas that are out of the realm of our everyday experience.
Everyone is familiar with the typical highway driving speed of 100 kilometers per hour or about 65 miles per hour. Let's use this to build a sense of perspective on astronomical distances. If there was a road that circled the earth with no diversions and we drove night and day non-stop, we could circle the earth in about 16 days.
Now suppose the car was a very special car that could drive right up into the sky and continue into outer space, all at the usual highway speed and driving non-stop day and night.
We could drive to the moon in 153 days.
The two closest planets to earth are Venus, going toward the sun, and Mars, moving away from the sun. We could drive to Venus in 45 years and Mars in 84 years. Beyond Mars lies Jupiter, which would require 685 years.
It would take 163 years to drive to the sun and if a highway could be built on the sun's surface, it would take five and a half years to circle the sun.
The planet with the well-known ring system around it is Saturn. If we could drive around the outer edge of Saturn's rings, it would take about a year to make a complete circuit.
To drive to the edge of our Solar System, around the orbits of Neptune and Pluto, would take 3,500 years.
To drive to the nearest star, about 4 light-years distant, would require about 42 million years.
The earth is probably about 5,000 million years old. If we had started driving at that time, we would only have gotten about 79 light-years into space by now. This is about as far as the stars in the Big Dipper, which are relatively close by.
Distances in inter-stellar space are measured in light-years. A light-year is the distance that light travels in one years, about 6 trillion miles. A trillion is a million million. To drive a light-year at highway speeds would require more than ten million years. Our galaxy is about 100,00 light-years in diameter and we are about 30,000 light-years from the center. A neighboring Galaxy about the size of our galaxy is the Andromeda Galaxy, it is about a million light-years distant. So, we have a long ride ahead.
The universe is a big place. There are thousands of millions of times as many stars in the universe as there are grains of sand on earth.
Now, let's go to the opposite end of the scale and have a look at the atomic level.
Hydrogen is the lightest element with the smallest atoms. If we could line up 100 hydrogen atoms, that is about the length that a human hair grows in one second. The pages of a book are about two million atoms thick.
If a drop of water could be expanded so that it was as big as the entire earth, the atoms in the drop would be about the size of oranges. If we had as many strawberries as there are atoms in a drop of water, they would cover the earth's surface with a layer about 20 meters thick.
The vast majority of an atom is empty space. The nucleus takes up only about a trillionth of the volume of an atom, the rest is the space in which the electrons orbit the nucleus. If the atom could be compared to a large sports stadium, the nucleus would be a strawberry in the middle of the playing field. But the nucleus is so dense that if one were the size of a strawberry, it would weigh about 75 million tons.
Atoms that compose matter are so empty yet the reason one object placed atop another will not merge into it is that the negatively-charged electrons in each repel each other.
The electrons that orbit the nucleus in an atom are infinitesimal point particles with essentially no volume whatsoever. I read somewhere one of the most useful perspectives of all: an electron is proportional to the size of a mountain as the mountain is to the size of the entire universe. Thus, a mountain could be described as the midway point in scale between the near-infinite and the near-infinitesimal.
The total number of atoms in the universe is probably about 1 followed by 79 zeros. Although it is not apparent on earth, about 75% of all atoms are hydrogen.
Matter in the universe is extremely sparse relative to space. The estimated concentration of matter in space across the universe is estimated to be only about three hydrogen atoms per cubic meter. But this includes the vast reaches of nearly-empty inter-galactic space between galaxies. The galaxies across the universe are about a million times as dense in matter as the sorrounding inter-galactic space.
Despite the nuclear infernos of stars, the universe is an extremely cold place. It's average temperature is about 3 degrees Kelvin. That is, three Celsius degrees above absolute zero. This is the temperature at which all molecular motion stops and it is impossible to get any colder. Absolute zero is -273.16 degrees Celsius or -459 degrees Fahrenheit.
Gravity is the force that drives the universe on a large scale simply because it is cumulative. It is actually a very weak force. Two ocean liners docked side-by-side would have only about one pound of gravity between them.
It is important to remember that while our galaxy is aligned mostly along one geometric plane, except for the central bulge, and the orbits of the planets in our Solar System are also mostly aligned along one plane, these two planes are not the same. The plane of the planetary orbits in the Solar System is tilted about 60 degrees to the plane of the galaxy. When we look at the southern stars of the northern hemisphere summer, we are looking toward the center of the galaxy.
When you look at a half moon, which means that you see a quarter of it's total surface, you are looking at an area that is about the size of the U.S. or Canada or, China. When you see the full moon, which is half it's total area, you can see an area about the size of Russia.
In an incredible cosmic coincidence involving the size of the moon and it's distance from earth as well as the angular diameter of the sun, the shadow of the moon just reaches to the earth. The sun is about 400 times the diameter of the moon but is also about 400 times as distant. This is why solar eclipses occur only over a limited area on earth. I have seen many lunar eclipses but never a solar eclipse. A solar eclipse is where the moon casts it's shadow on the earth and a lunar eclipse is where the earth casts it's shadow on the moon. There is not an eclipse every time the moon orbits the earth because there is about 5 degrees difference between the plane of the earth's orbit around the sun and the plane of the moon's orbit around the earth.
The sun converts about four million tons of mass into energy every second and the earth receives about one part in two thousand million of this energy.
The earth is only a speck even in our own Solar System. The sun takes up about 99.86% of the mass of the Solar System and of that remaining, Jupiter is larger than all of the other planets combined.
If you think weather conditions are sometimes hostile on earth, Jupiter has atmospheric pressure about 200,000 times that of earth. Neptune has winds so powerful that they are like the shock waves from nuclear bombs would be in earth's atmosphere. Venus has dense clouds about 15 km thick so that only about 1% of the sunlight reaches the planet's surface. The clouds of Venus contain sulfuric acid so, if we brought an aluminum airplane there, it would disintegrate.
The average depth of the oceans on earth is 3600 meters. The average height of land above sea level is 760 meters. If the earth was a ball and you held it, the oceans would be so thin that you could not tell they were there. Only 1% of earth's water is available to us as fresh water.
The earth's atmosphere extends upward for hundreds of kilometers. But 75% of the air is in the troposphere below 11 km altitude.
We think of oxygen as a gas in the air but rocks also contain a vast amount of oxygen, combined with silicon plus many impurities.
Weather revolves around the simple fact that water is lighter than air by molecule so that it evaporates but when water molecules join together in large numbers by hydrogen bonding, it becomes 800 times as heavy as air at sea level so that it falls as precipitation.
Air is heavier than most people think. Pressurizing the cabin of a jet airliner might add a ton to it's weight. On the moon, a feather and a rock will fall at the same rate because there is no air resistance. If there were no air resistance to falling objects on earth, raindrops would be like bullets.
You probably have an atom in your body that was once a part of the body of anyone who has ever lived as long as they have been dead for a century or so.
Trees literally appear out of thin air. They take nutrients and water from the ground but their structure is composed of carbon taken from carbon dixoide in the air.
More than 90% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct.
There are about a million insects per person in the world and at any given time, you have about as many microscopic creatures on your body as there are people on earth.
A human being has undergone about half of their total intellectual development by the age of four.
By far the most important food in the world as a whole is rice. No other food even comes close.
If you want a vivid depiction of the population explosion, consider that humans have been on earth for maybe a million years but about one in every nine people that has ever lived is alive now.
Everyone is familiar with the typical highway driving speed of 100 kilometers per hour or about 65 miles per hour. Let's use this to build a sense of perspective on astronomical distances. If there was a road that circled the earth with no diversions and we drove night and day non-stop, we could circle the earth in about 16 days.
Now suppose the car was a very special car that could drive right up into the sky and continue into outer space, all at the usual highway speed and driving non-stop day and night.
We could drive to the moon in 153 days.
The two closest planets to earth are Venus, going toward the sun, and Mars, moving away from the sun. We could drive to Venus in 45 years and Mars in 84 years. Beyond Mars lies Jupiter, which would require 685 years.
It would take 163 years to drive to the sun and if a highway could be built on the sun's surface, it would take five and a half years to circle the sun.
The planet with the well-known ring system around it is Saturn. If we could drive around the outer edge of Saturn's rings, it would take about a year to make a complete circuit.
To drive to the edge of our Solar System, around the orbits of Neptune and Pluto, would take 3,500 years.
To drive to the nearest star, about 4 light-years distant, would require about 42 million years.
The earth is probably about 5,000 million years old. If we had started driving at that time, we would only have gotten about 79 light-years into space by now. This is about as far as the stars in the Big Dipper, which are relatively close by.
Distances in inter-stellar space are measured in light-years. A light-year is the distance that light travels in one years, about 6 trillion miles. A trillion is a million million. To drive a light-year at highway speeds would require more than ten million years. Our galaxy is about 100,00 light-years in diameter and we are about 30,000 light-years from the center. A neighboring Galaxy about the size of our galaxy is the Andromeda Galaxy, it is about a million light-years distant. So, we have a long ride ahead.
The universe is a big place. There are thousands of millions of times as many stars in the universe as there are grains of sand on earth.
Now, let's go to the opposite end of the scale and have a look at the atomic level.
Hydrogen is the lightest element with the smallest atoms. If we could line up 100 hydrogen atoms, that is about the length that a human hair grows in one second. The pages of a book are about two million atoms thick.
If a drop of water could be expanded so that it was as big as the entire earth, the atoms in the drop would be about the size of oranges. If we had as many strawberries as there are atoms in a drop of water, they would cover the earth's surface with a layer about 20 meters thick.
The vast majority of an atom is empty space. The nucleus takes up only about a trillionth of the volume of an atom, the rest is the space in which the electrons orbit the nucleus. If the atom could be compared to a large sports stadium, the nucleus would be a strawberry in the middle of the playing field. But the nucleus is so dense that if one were the size of a strawberry, it would weigh about 75 million tons.
Atoms that compose matter are so empty yet the reason one object placed atop another will not merge into it is that the negatively-charged electrons in each repel each other.
The electrons that orbit the nucleus in an atom are infinitesimal point particles with essentially no volume whatsoever. I read somewhere one of the most useful perspectives of all: an electron is proportional to the size of a mountain as the mountain is to the size of the entire universe. Thus, a mountain could be described as the midway point in scale between the near-infinite and the near-infinitesimal.
The total number of atoms in the universe is probably about 1 followed by 79 zeros. Although it is not apparent on earth, about 75% of all atoms are hydrogen.
Matter in the universe is extremely sparse relative to space. The estimated concentration of matter in space across the universe is estimated to be only about three hydrogen atoms per cubic meter. But this includes the vast reaches of nearly-empty inter-galactic space between galaxies. The galaxies across the universe are about a million times as dense in matter as the sorrounding inter-galactic space.
Despite the nuclear infernos of stars, the universe is an extremely cold place. It's average temperature is about 3 degrees Kelvin. That is, three Celsius degrees above absolute zero. This is the temperature at which all molecular motion stops and it is impossible to get any colder. Absolute zero is -273.16 degrees Celsius or -459 degrees Fahrenheit.
Gravity is the force that drives the universe on a large scale simply because it is cumulative. It is actually a very weak force. Two ocean liners docked side-by-side would have only about one pound of gravity between them.
It is important to remember that while our galaxy is aligned mostly along one geometric plane, except for the central bulge, and the orbits of the planets in our Solar System are also mostly aligned along one plane, these two planes are not the same. The plane of the planetary orbits in the Solar System is tilted about 60 degrees to the plane of the galaxy. When we look at the southern stars of the northern hemisphere summer, we are looking toward the center of the galaxy.
When you look at a half moon, which means that you see a quarter of it's total surface, you are looking at an area that is about the size of the U.S. or Canada or, China. When you see the full moon, which is half it's total area, you can see an area about the size of Russia.
In an incredible cosmic coincidence involving the size of the moon and it's distance from earth as well as the angular diameter of the sun, the shadow of the moon just reaches to the earth. The sun is about 400 times the diameter of the moon but is also about 400 times as distant. This is why solar eclipses occur only over a limited area on earth. I have seen many lunar eclipses but never a solar eclipse. A solar eclipse is where the moon casts it's shadow on the earth and a lunar eclipse is where the earth casts it's shadow on the moon. There is not an eclipse every time the moon orbits the earth because there is about 5 degrees difference between the plane of the earth's orbit around the sun and the plane of the moon's orbit around the earth.
The sun converts about four million tons of mass into energy every second and the earth receives about one part in two thousand million of this energy.
The earth is only a speck even in our own Solar System. The sun takes up about 99.86% of the mass of the Solar System and of that remaining, Jupiter is larger than all of the other planets combined.
If you think weather conditions are sometimes hostile on earth, Jupiter has atmospheric pressure about 200,000 times that of earth. Neptune has winds so powerful that they are like the shock waves from nuclear bombs would be in earth's atmosphere. Venus has dense clouds about 15 km thick so that only about 1% of the sunlight reaches the planet's surface. The clouds of Venus contain sulfuric acid so, if we brought an aluminum airplane there, it would disintegrate.
The average depth of the oceans on earth is 3600 meters. The average height of land above sea level is 760 meters. If the earth was a ball and you held it, the oceans would be so thin that you could not tell they were there. Only 1% of earth's water is available to us as fresh water.
The earth's atmosphere extends upward for hundreds of kilometers. But 75% of the air is in the troposphere below 11 km altitude.
We think of oxygen as a gas in the air but rocks also contain a vast amount of oxygen, combined with silicon plus many impurities.
Weather revolves around the simple fact that water is lighter than air by molecule so that it evaporates but when water molecules join together in large numbers by hydrogen bonding, it becomes 800 times as heavy as air at sea level so that it falls as precipitation.
Air is heavier than most people think. Pressurizing the cabin of a jet airliner might add a ton to it's weight. On the moon, a feather and a rock will fall at the same rate because there is no air resistance. If there were no air resistance to falling objects on earth, raindrops would be like bullets.
You probably have an atom in your body that was once a part of the body of anyone who has ever lived as long as they have been dead for a century or so.
Trees literally appear out of thin air. They take nutrients and water from the ground but their structure is composed of carbon taken from carbon dixoide in the air.
More than 90% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct.
There are about a million insects per person in the world and at any given time, you have about as many microscopic creatures on your body as there are people on earth.
A human being has undergone about half of their total intellectual development by the age of four.
By far the most important food in the world as a whole is rice. No other food even comes close.
If you want a vivid depiction of the population explosion, consider that humans have been on earth for maybe a million years but about one in every nine people that has ever lived is alive now.
Gravity Made Really Simple
I would like to describe how gravity operates in my own terms. This is not a new discovery or anything like that but, I have yet to see gravity described in the way that it's operation appears to me.
We know that the moon is 1/81 the mass of the earth and that it's surface gravity is 1/6 that of the earth. But you may be wondering, if the mass of the moon is only 1/81 that of the earth, then why isn't it's surface gravity also 1/81 that of the earth?
The answer is that the surface gravity of a spherical body, such as a planet, is proportional to the total mass divided by the surface area. The diameter of the moon is 1/4 that of the earth, meaning that it's surface area is 1/16 that of the earth. If the moon's mass is 1/81 that of the earth and it's surface area is 1/16 that of the earth, it's surface gravity should be about 1/ ( 81/16), or about 1/5 that of earth, which is fairly close to the measured figure of 1/6.
This simple formula does not take into account that the planet or moon may not be of uniform density. If a body is more dense toward it's core, it's mass will be more concentrated and it's surface gravity will be stronger than if it was of uniform density.
The reason that the surface gravity of the moon is somewhat weaker than the formula indicates it should be, 1/6 that of the earth instead of 1/5, can only be because the mass of the earth is more concentrated than that of the moon. The moon is made of the same type of rock as the earth's mantle but the earth has a heavy iron core that the moon lacks.
This concept of surface gravity being proportional to mass/surface area means that we can easily calculate what the gravity would be at any altitude above the earth's surface. The radius of the earth is about 4000 miles or 6450 km. Suppose we wanted an estimate of the gravity at an altitude of 10 miles or 16 kilometers, we would only need to add that figure to the earth's radius and then calculate what the earth's surface area would be if that were, in fact, the radius. Then, divide the actual radius of the earth by that number to get the gravity at that altitude in comparison with the earth's surface gravity.
So, if the earth's radius were 4,010 miles, instead of the actual 4,000 miles, it's surface area would be the smaller number divided by the larger number and then the result squared, in comparison with it's actual surface area. This gives us .9975 squared = .995.
This means that the gravity at an altitude of 10 miles or about 16 km above the earth's surface should be about .995 of the earth's surface gravity. In dealing with the earth, we should not try to be too accurate by using more significant figures simply because the surface gravity and the land altitude of the earth is not exactly uniform.
Next, I would like to describe my version of why an object falls from a height to the surface of the earth or other body. An object falls not because of gravity, but because of a difference in gravity. This difference in gravity due to distance ratio from a body is usually referred to as tidal force.
If an object at some distance above the earth's surface will experience a stronger pull of gravity from the earth by edging closer to the earth, then that object will do just that and will fall to the earth's surface. If there is only a very minimal difference in the strength of the earth's gravitational pull on the object if it edged closer to the earth and if the object has lateral momentum that can negate this minor tidal force, the object will not fall to the earth.
The earth's gravity is, however, strong enough to hold onto the object even if it does not fall to the surface. The result is that vector of the direction of earth's gravitational pull on the object combines with the vector of the lateral momentum on the object to give the object an orbit around the earth.
The center of our galaxy exerts a very strong gravitational pull on the earth, as well as on the entire Solar System. We do not move any closer to the center because there is only a minimal tidal force on us from the galactic center. It's gravitational pull is immense, but the difference in it's gravitational pull, if we should move a little bit closer to the center, is not. The reason is simply the great distance between the earth and the galaxy's center, as well as the diffuse arrangement of matter at the center.
An ideal example of tidal force is, as you may expect, the tides in the earth's oceans. Tides are caused not just by gravity, but by a difference in gravity. As the moon passes overhead, the surface of the ocean is closer to the moon than is the bottom of the ocean. This causes more of a pull at the surface by the moon's gravity than at the bottom of the ocean. The result is the well-known bulge in the surface of the ocean, known as a tide.
The sun produces tides on the earth's oceans also. But solar tides are less than half as high as lunar tides. How can this be when the sun is so massive compared to the moon? The answer is in the relative distance. The sun is about 400 times as far from earth as the moon is. There is a difference in the pull of the sun's gravity on the ocean's surface compared with the pull on the ocean floor. But because the sun is so far away, the proportional difference in this pull is much less than that of the much closer moon.
As you may notice, falling operates by exactly the same principle as tides. Not just by gravity, but by a difference in gravity. Falling does not make sense unless the place that the falling object is going to has a stronger gravitational force than the place that it is coming from.
People who live near the Great Lakes of North America may wonder why, if there are tides in the oceans, there are no real tides in the Great Lakes. The answer is that the lakes are so shallow. The proportion of the distance from the moon to the surface of the lakes in comparision with the distance from the moon to the bottom of the lakes is too slight to produce tides. If the moon were closer to the earth, this proportion would be greater and there could be tides in the Great Lakes.
Remember that the gravity exerted by a body or arrangement of bodies, such as the galactic center, is inversely proportional to either the surface area of the body or the diffuseness of the arrangement of bodies. Thus, the gravitational force exerted on the earth by the galactic center is somewhat spread out, rather than highly concentrated. If the galactic center were to coalesce into one vast body, it's gravity would be concentrated and we could possibly be pulled in as well.
I looked up at night a while ago, and saw the Pleiades. This is the cluster of stars in the northern winter sky that is otherwise known as The Seven Sisters. It got me thinking some more about the nature of gravity and today I would like to describe, in my own terms, how we should look at gravity as a conservative force.
Our sun is a single star, but this is the exception rather than the rule. Most stars exist in pairs, with a certain number in multiple star systems. Many more, such as those making up the Pleiades, are members of closely packed clusters of stars. Such groupings are the result of the conservative nature of gravity.
I find that a fundamental principle of gravity is that it can never work against itself in a given gravitational system. Gravity is, of course, the seeking of the lowest possible energy state in the arrangement of matter in space. We saw in "The Weight Hypothesis", on the physics and astronomy blog, how the manifestation of weight is a result of this movement by gravity to the lowest energy state being blocked by the electron repulsion of matter in contact with other matter.
Put simply, a gravitational mass can never be divided by it's own internal gravitational workings. The mass can redistribute itself while seeking the lowest possible energy state, but the center of mass must remain constant. A given amount of mass has a consistent amount of gravitational pull in the sorrounding space, and the result is the clusters and systems of stars that we see in the sky.
The best illustration of this conservation of gravity is the formation of stars from clouds of dust, gas and, debris in space. If the cloud is relatively uniform in shape and density it will tend to form one large star, rather than multiple stars. But the more unevenness, the more likely multiple stars will form from the cloud. When enough mass is pulled together by gravity so that it's internal gravity, at it's center, can crush smaller atoms together into larger atoms, a star is born.
But the conservation of gravity comes into play when multiple stars form from a cloud of dust and debris that had been bound together by it's internal gravity. The stars which form from such a cloud must remain bound together by gravity. They must exist as a pair, a multiple star system, or a cluster like the Pleiades. The stars which form from a gravitational system, such as the cloud, cannot go their separate ways, barring outside gravitational influence.
Neither can the stars fall together into one mass, if it would shift the original center of mass of the cloud from which the stars formed. Unless outside mass is introduced into the system, or the system is unstable and has a a reason to shed a star to regain stability, the original gravitational configuration must be conserved.
In summary, a star cluster such as the Pleiades must remain gravitationally bound together if the stars formed from a gravitationally bound cloud of dust and debris. The original gravity, and center of mass, must be conserved. This explains not only why stars form pairs, multiples and, clusters, but also why stars are arranged in galaxies and groups of galaxies.
Rotation must also be conserved. If the cloud of dust was undergoing rotation before the stars formed from it, then those stars must also undergo mutual rotation. It is true that contraction of the cloud into a star may bring about faster rotation, and this may throw off some outer mass. But if the mass that is thrown outward was part of the original gravitational mass of the cloud, it cannot be thrown clear of the star's gravitational domain and must continue in rotation around the star.
There are a number of answers online for the basic question of why the orbits of planets around the sun are elliptical, rather than circular. However, I cannot see that anyone has come up with the same explanation that I have and I would like to provide this explanation today. We have seen the cosmology behind elliptical orbits in the posting "Basic Physics And Cosmology, but our explanation today will be the conventional science three-dimensional one and it will not be necessary to delve into the cosmology of outer dimensions here.
The basic question is as follows. It was established long ago, by the German astronomer and mathematician Johannes (pronounced Yo-han) Kepler, that planets orbit the sun in ellipses, rather than circles, with the sun being at one of the two foci of the ellipse. An ellipse is a flattened circle, with two foci rather than one. This is why the earth is closest to the sun in January, and furthest away in June.
The proportional difference between the perihelion, the closest distance from the central body in the orbit, and aphelion, the furthest distance from the central body in the orbit, is referred to as the eccentricity of the orbit. The less eccentric the orbit, the closer is the ellipse to being a circle.
So, here is the question: If the orbits of planets around the sun take the form of an ellipse, then why is this not true of the orbits of the asteroids, in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter, around the sun? Why is it not true of the rings around the planet Saturn or the gradual orbits of stars around the center of the galaxy?
The rings of Saturn are not solid, as they may appear from earth, but are composed of dust and particles of ice. Apparently, the particles composing the rings are close enough to the planet that it's gravity prevents the particles from coalescing into a moon. There is a boundary around Saturn, within which the planet's gravity will prevent such formations of moons so that the ice and dust forms rings around the planet. Jupiter, Uranus and, Neptune also have ring systems, although much fainter than that of Saturn.
Galaxies take a number of common forms but the largest ones, including our own, are spiral in form. There are many photos taken of spiral galaxies, which appear much like ours would if we could see it from outside. In spiral galaxies vast numbers of stars, at various distances from the center, gradually orbit the central hub of the galaxy.
We saw the fundamental rule that a system, bound by gravity, which undergoes gravitational coalescing cannot work against itself as it seeks the lowest energy state. The center of mass must remain constant and the original gravitational configuration must be conserved, barring outside influence.
In the article, "Why Is The Earth Tilted On It's Axis?" which is now a supporting document in the posting "The Story Of Planet Earth" on the geology blog www.markmeekearth.blogspot.com, we saw another example of this conservation of gravity. When the earth's continents moved tectonically northward, it changed the center of mass of the planet. But, according to the rule that the original gravitational configuration must be conserved, the line between the center of the earth and the center of the sun could not be changed by any internal re-configuring of the system.
So, what happened is the earth tilted on it's axis 23 1/2 degrees to accommodate the change in it's center of mass without changing the established line of gravitational axis between the center of the earth and the center of the sun. I cannot see another satisfactory explanation for the tilt of the earth's axis, which gives us the seasons of the year.
If we look at a diagram of the asteroid belt, we get a glimpse into the early Solar System. There was a vast amount of debris that had been thrown out across space by an exploding star, a supernova. Most of this debris coalesced by gravity into another star, a second-generation star, which is the sun. The rest was in orbit around the sun, and gradually coalesced in concentric rings by gravity into the planets. The asteroids remain as they were because the tremendous gravity of Jupiter prevented them from coalescing into a planet in the same way that the gravity of Saturn prevented the particles composing the rings from coalescing into a moon.
When various rocky and metallic debris, similar to the asteroids today, coalesces into a planet by gravity, it does so over a concentric ring zone centered on the sun. The planets, at periodic distances from the sun, are the result of this coalescing. But when this happens, some of the debris is closer to the sun and some is further from the sun. The debris that is further would have a longer orbital period around the sun than that which was closer. This is in accordance with Kepler's Law that a line from the central body to the orbiting body will sweep over equal areas of space in equal periods of time.
But, according to the rule that gravitational relationships must be conserved as long as there is no outside force, new orbits cannot just be created when the coalescing takes place. The debris from further away from the sun cannot just merge their orbits with the debris from closer to the sun, because that would be changing the fundamental gravitational relationship.
Just as the gravitational axis line from the center of the earth to the center of the sun cannot be changed because of an internal re-configuring of the earth's mass with the shifting of the continents, the orbits of debris around the sun cannot be changed by an internal re-configuring with adjacent debris if there is a difference in the nature of their orbits.
The nearer and further debris, which coalesces by gravity to form a planet, cannot merge their orbits together to create a new orbit because that cannot be done by matter whose orbits are dominated by the central body. Both the further orbits and the nearer orbits must be maintained after the debris coalesces into a planet. The only way to accomplish this is, like the earth tilting on it's axis, an elliptical orbit with both aphelion to represent the orbit of the furthest debris and perihelion to represent the orbit of the nearest debris that coalesced to form the planet. Galileo, who said that orbits should be circles, was at least partially correct.
We know that the moon is 1/81 the mass of the earth and that it's surface gravity is 1/6 that of the earth. But you may be wondering, if the mass of the moon is only 1/81 that of the earth, then why isn't it's surface gravity also 1/81 that of the earth?
The answer is that the surface gravity of a spherical body, such as a planet, is proportional to the total mass divided by the surface area. The diameter of the moon is 1/4 that of the earth, meaning that it's surface area is 1/16 that of the earth. If the moon's mass is 1/81 that of the earth and it's surface area is 1/16 that of the earth, it's surface gravity should be about 1/ ( 81/16), or about 1/5 that of earth, which is fairly close to the measured figure of 1/6.
This simple formula does not take into account that the planet or moon may not be of uniform density. If a body is more dense toward it's core, it's mass will be more concentrated and it's surface gravity will be stronger than if it was of uniform density.
The reason that the surface gravity of the moon is somewhat weaker than the formula indicates it should be, 1/6 that of the earth instead of 1/5, can only be because the mass of the earth is more concentrated than that of the moon. The moon is made of the same type of rock as the earth's mantle but the earth has a heavy iron core that the moon lacks.
This concept of surface gravity being proportional to mass/surface area means that we can easily calculate what the gravity would be at any altitude above the earth's surface. The radius of the earth is about 4000 miles or 6450 km. Suppose we wanted an estimate of the gravity at an altitude of 10 miles or 16 kilometers, we would only need to add that figure to the earth's radius and then calculate what the earth's surface area would be if that were, in fact, the radius. Then, divide the actual radius of the earth by that number to get the gravity at that altitude in comparison with the earth's surface gravity.
So, if the earth's radius were 4,010 miles, instead of the actual 4,000 miles, it's surface area would be the smaller number divided by the larger number and then the result squared, in comparison with it's actual surface area. This gives us .9975 squared = .995.
This means that the gravity at an altitude of 10 miles or about 16 km above the earth's surface should be about .995 of the earth's surface gravity. In dealing with the earth, we should not try to be too accurate by using more significant figures simply because the surface gravity and the land altitude of the earth is not exactly uniform.
Next, I would like to describe my version of why an object falls from a height to the surface of the earth or other body. An object falls not because of gravity, but because of a difference in gravity. This difference in gravity due to distance ratio from a body is usually referred to as tidal force.
If an object at some distance above the earth's surface will experience a stronger pull of gravity from the earth by edging closer to the earth, then that object will do just that and will fall to the earth's surface. If there is only a very minimal difference in the strength of the earth's gravitational pull on the object if it edged closer to the earth and if the object has lateral momentum that can negate this minor tidal force, the object will not fall to the earth.
The earth's gravity is, however, strong enough to hold onto the object even if it does not fall to the surface. The result is that vector of the direction of earth's gravitational pull on the object combines with the vector of the lateral momentum on the object to give the object an orbit around the earth.
The center of our galaxy exerts a very strong gravitational pull on the earth, as well as on the entire Solar System. We do not move any closer to the center because there is only a minimal tidal force on us from the galactic center. It's gravitational pull is immense, but the difference in it's gravitational pull, if we should move a little bit closer to the center, is not. The reason is simply the great distance between the earth and the galaxy's center, as well as the diffuse arrangement of matter at the center.
An ideal example of tidal force is, as you may expect, the tides in the earth's oceans. Tides are caused not just by gravity, but by a difference in gravity. As the moon passes overhead, the surface of the ocean is closer to the moon than is the bottom of the ocean. This causes more of a pull at the surface by the moon's gravity than at the bottom of the ocean. The result is the well-known bulge in the surface of the ocean, known as a tide.
The sun produces tides on the earth's oceans also. But solar tides are less than half as high as lunar tides. How can this be when the sun is so massive compared to the moon? The answer is in the relative distance. The sun is about 400 times as far from earth as the moon is. There is a difference in the pull of the sun's gravity on the ocean's surface compared with the pull on the ocean floor. But because the sun is so far away, the proportional difference in this pull is much less than that of the much closer moon.
As you may notice, falling operates by exactly the same principle as tides. Not just by gravity, but by a difference in gravity. Falling does not make sense unless the place that the falling object is going to has a stronger gravitational force than the place that it is coming from.
People who live near the Great Lakes of North America may wonder why, if there are tides in the oceans, there are no real tides in the Great Lakes. The answer is that the lakes are so shallow. The proportion of the distance from the moon to the surface of the lakes in comparision with the distance from the moon to the bottom of the lakes is too slight to produce tides. If the moon were closer to the earth, this proportion would be greater and there could be tides in the Great Lakes.
Remember that the gravity exerted by a body or arrangement of bodies, such as the galactic center, is inversely proportional to either the surface area of the body or the diffuseness of the arrangement of bodies. Thus, the gravitational force exerted on the earth by the galactic center is somewhat spread out, rather than highly concentrated. If the galactic center were to coalesce into one vast body, it's gravity would be concentrated and we could possibly be pulled in as well.
I looked up at night a while ago, and saw the Pleiades. This is the cluster of stars in the northern winter sky that is otherwise known as The Seven Sisters. It got me thinking some more about the nature of gravity and today I would like to describe, in my own terms, how we should look at gravity as a conservative force.
Our sun is a single star, but this is the exception rather than the rule. Most stars exist in pairs, with a certain number in multiple star systems. Many more, such as those making up the Pleiades, are members of closely packed clusters of stars. Such groupings are the result of the conservative nature of gravity.
I find that a fundamental principle of gravity is that it can never work against itself in a given gravitational system. Gravity is, of course, the seeking of the lowest possible energy state in the arrangement of matter in space. We saw in "The Weight Hypothesis", on the physics and astronomy blog, how the manifestation of weight is a result of this movement by gravity to the lowest energy state being blocked by the electron repulsion of matter in contact with other matter.
Put simply, a gravitational mass can never be divided by it's own internal gravitational workings. The mass can redistribute itself while seeking the lowest possible energy state, but the center of mass must remain constant. A given amount of mass has a consistent amount of gravitational pull in the sorrounding space, and the result is the clusters and systems of stars that we see in the sky.
The best illustration of this conservation of gravity is the formation of stars from clouds of dust, gas and, debris in space. If the cloud is relatively uniform in shape and density it will tend to form one large star, rather than multiple stars. But the more unevenness, the more likely multiple stars will form from the cloud. When enough mass is pulled together by gravity so that it's internal gravity, at it's center, can crush smaller atoms together into larger atoms, a star is born.
But the conservation of gravity comes into play when multiple stars form from a cloud of dust and debris that had been bound together by it's internal gravity. The stars which form from such a cloud must remain bound together by gravity. They must exist as a pair, a multiple star system, or a cluster like the Pleiades. The stars which form from a gravitational system, such as the cloud, cannot go their separate ways, barring outside gravitational influence.
Neither can the stars fall together into one mass, if it would shift the original center of mass of the cloud from which the stars formed. Unless outside mass is introduced into the system, or the system is unstable and has a a reason to shed a star to regain stability, the original gravitational configuration must be conserved.
In summary, a star cluster such as the Pleiades must remain gravitationally bound together if the stars formed from a gravitationally bound cloud of dust and debris. The original gravity, and center of mass, must be conserved. This explains not only why stars form pairs, multiples and, clusters, but also why stars are arranged in galaxies and groups of galaxies.
Rotation must also be conserved. If the cloud of dust was undergoing rotation before the stars formed from it, then those stars must also undergo mutual rotation. It is true that contraction of the cloud into a star may bring about faster rotation, and this may throw off some outer mass. But if the mass that is thrown outward was part of the original gravitational mass of the cloud, it cannot be thrown clear of the star's gravitational domain and must continue in rotation around the star.
There are a number of answers online for the basic question of why the orbits of planets around the sun are elliptical, rather than circular. However, I cannot see that anyone has come up with the same explanation that I have and I would like to provide this explanation today. We have seen the cosmology behind elliptical orbits in the posting "Basic Physics And Cosmology, but our explanation today will be the conventional science three-dimensional one and it will not be necessary to delve into the cosmology of outer dimensions here.
The basic question is as follows. It was established long ago, by the German astronomer and mathematician Johannes (pronounced Yo-han) Kepler, that planets orbit the sun in ellipses, rather than circles, with the sun being at one of the two foci of the ellipse. An ellipse is a flattened circle, with two foci rather than one. This is why the earth is closest to the sun in January, and furthest away in June.
The proportional difference between the perihelion, the closest distance from the central body in the orbit, and aphelion, the furthest distance from the central body in the orbit, is referred to as the eccentricity of the orbit. The less eccentric the orbit, the closer is the ellipse to being a circle.
So, here is the question: If the orbits of planets around the sun take the form of an ellipse, then why is this not true of the orbits of the asteroids, in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter, around the sun? Why is it not true of the rings around the planet Saturn or the gradual orbits of stars around the center of the galaxy?
The rings of Saturn are not solid, as they may appear from earth, but are composed of dust and particles of ice. Apparently, the particles composing the rings are close enough to the planet that it's gravity prevents the particles from coalescing into a moon. There is a boundary around Saturn, within which the planet's gravity will prevent such formations of moons so that the ice and dust forms rings around the planet. Jupiter, Uranus and, Neptune also have ring systems, although much fainter than that of Saturn.
Galaxies take a number of common forms but the largest ones, including our own, are spiral in form. There are many photos taken of spiral galaxies, which appear much like ours would if we could see it from outside. In spiral galaxies vast numbers of stars, at various distances from the center, gradually orbit the central hub of the galaxy.
We saw the fundamental rule that a system, bound by gravity, which undergoes gravitational coalescing cannot work against itself as it seeks the lowest energy state. The center of mass must remain constant and the original gravitational configuration must be conserved, barring outside influence.
In the article, "Why Is The Earth Tilted On It's Axis?" which is now a supporting document in the posting "The Story Of Planet Earth" on the geology blog www.markmeekearth.blogspot.com, we saw another example of this conservation of gravity. When the earth's continents moved tectonically northward, it changed the center of mass of the planet. But, according to the rule that the original gravitational configuration must be conserved, the line between the center of the earth and the center of the sun could not be changed by any internal re-configuring of the system.
So, what happened is the earth tilted on it's axis 23 1/2 degrees to accommodate the change in it's center of mass without changing the established line of gravitational axis between the center of the earth and the center of the sun. I cannot see another satisfactory explanation for the tilt of the earth's axis, which gives us the seasons of the year.
If we look at a diagram of the asteroid belt, we get a glimpse into the early Solar System. There was a vast amount of debris that had been thrown out across space by an exploding star, a supernova. Most of this debris coalesced by gravity into another star, a second-generation star, which is the sun. The rest was in orbit around the sun, and gradually coalesced in concentric rings by gravity into the planets. The asteroids remain as they were because the tremendous gravity of Jupiter prevented them from coalescing into a planet in the same way that the gravity of Saturn prevented the particles composing the rings from coalescing into a moon.
When various rocky and metallic debris, similar to the asteroids today, coalesces into a planet by gravity, it does so over a concentric ring zone centered on the sun. The planets, at periodic distances from the sun, are the result of this coalescing. But when this happens, some of the debris is closer to the sun and some is further from the sun. The debris that is further would have a longer orbital period around the sun than that which was closer. This is in accordance with Kepler's Law that a line from the central body to the orbiting body will sweep over equal areas of space in equal periods of time.
But, according to the rule that gravitational relationships must be conserved as long as there is no outside force, new orbits cannot just be created when the coalescing takes place. The debris from further away from the sun cannot just merge their orbits with the debris from closer to the sun, because that would be changing the fundamental gravitational relationship.
Just as the gravitational axis line from the center of the earth to the center of the sun cannot be changed because of an internal re-configuring of the earth's mass with the shifting of the continents, the orbits of debris around the sun cannot be changed by an internal re-configuring with adjacent debris if there is a difference in the nature of their orbits.
The nearer and further debris, which coalesces by gravity to form a planet, cannot merge their orbits together to create a new orbit because that cannot be done by matter whose orbits are dominated by the central body. Both the further orbits and the nearer orbits must be maintained after the debris coalesces into a planet. The only way to accomplish this is, like the earth tilting on it's axis, an elliptical orbit with both aphelion to represent the orbit of the furthest debris and perihelion to represent the orbit of the nearest debris that coalesced to form the planet. Galileo, who said that orbits should be circles, was at least partially correct.
Ballistics Made Really Simple
Today, I would like to give my version of the science of ballistics. That is, I want to explain it here on my own terms.
First, let's define ballistics. An object is said to be in ballistic flight when it is flying as a result of an impact or other input of energy, but does not have a source of power of it's own. An aircraft or bird is not in ballistic flight because both of these have sources of power to enable them to fly.
A rocket is not in ballistic flight if it's engines are on, but it is if the engine thrust has been turned off and it is flying by the resulting momentum. When in the atmosphere, a flying object must be heavier than air to be in ballistic flight. A lighter-than-air balloon is not ballistic.
Ballistics usually refers to the motion of bullets and artillery shells. But it is close to the beginning of baseball season in North America and so, in an effort to make baseball more interesting, I will use the motion of a ball to describe ballistics. But the same principles will apply to any object in ballistic flight. Readers in Commonwealth countries can simply substitute cricket for baseball.
In these examples, I will presume that the ball is caught at the same level that it was thrown or hit, that the playing field is level and that there is no wind. I will neglect any air resistance on the ball.
Consider a ball that is hit or thrown upward at a given angle to the horizontal ground. Just like the hands on a clock, this initial angle determines how long the ball will remain in the air. If the force with which the ball is hit or thrown remains constant, the ball will cover the greatest horizontal distance when it is launched at a 45 degree angle. This is the point at which the horizontal and vertical components of the thrust are equal.
Because the ball is always falling vertically while it is progressing horizontally, a vertical distance is necessary to extend the horizontal distance that the ball travels. This is why the maximum horizontal distance is obtained at 45 degrees and not 0 degrees, because the ball stops when it meets the ground. Angles at which the ball are hit that are equidistant from 45 degrees, such as 30 and 60 degrees, will produce equal horizontal distances covered by the ballistic flight of the ball.
At a launch angle of 45 degrees, the maximum vertical height reached by the ball will be half that of the horizontal distance travelled by the ball. But the total vertical motion will be equal to the total horizontal motion. This is because the vertical motion in the course of the ball's flight consists of both ascension and descension, and the two must be added together.
The impact or throw which launched the ball into ballistic flight is instantaneous, but the gravity which acts on the ball is constant and continuous. This means simply that gravity drops the vertical velocity of the ball at a constant rate down to zero and then reverses it until it is at a negative value of the original velocity at the end of it's flight. The horizontal velocity of the ball, in contrast, is constant throughout the flight.
At launch angles above 45 degrees to the horizontal, the tangent of the angle gives the relationship of total vertical motion (ascension plus descension) to the horizontal distance covered by the ball. This means that at an angle with a tangent of 2, or 63.4 degrees, the maximum height that the ball reaches in flight is equal to the horizontal distance that it covers.
By the way, the way to measure how high a ball has climbed is to time it. Take the total time that the ball was in the air. Then divide that by two because the ball was ascending for only half of that time. Square the number of seconds and then multiply that by 16 feet or 4.9 meters. This presumes, once again, that the ball is caught at the same height above the horizontal that it was thrown or hit.
The total two-dimensional area of the air and the surface of the ground where the ball is overhead at some point during the flight will be shaped like a bell, as long as the ball was hit at an upward angle. This two-dimensional covered area increases as the launch angle of the ball increases, up to 45 degrees and then remains constant. The size of the two-dimensional covered area is in direct proportion to the time that the ball spends in the air, but not to the horizontal distance that it covers.
From the time that the ball is hit by the bat, the angle relative to the horizontal at which it flies is continuously and steadily decreasing. This is why the maximum altitude of a ball launched at 45 degrees is only half of the horizontal distance covered.
At the point of maximum altitude, this angle is zero and the course of the ball is briefly parallel to the horizontal ground. The angle of the ball's course then becomes negative as it heads back toward the ground. Finally, the ball is caught at the end of it's flight with a negative value of it's launch angle and velocity. The total span of angles that the course of the ball goes through is thus twice that of the initial angle at launch.
There, hopefully baseball will be a little bit more interesting this year.
First, let's define ballistics. An object is said to be in ballistic flight when it is flying as a result of an impact or other input of energy, but does not have a source of power of it's own. An aircraft or bird is not in ballistic flight because both of these have sources of power to enable them to fly.
A rocket is not in ballistic flight if it's engines are on, but it is if the engine thrust has been turned off and it is flying by the resulting momentum. When in the atmosphere, a flying object must be heavier than air to be in ballistic flight. A lighter-than-air balloon is not ballistic.
Ballistics usually refers to the motion of bullets and artillery shells. But it is close to the beginning of baseball season in North America and so, in an effort to make baseball more interesting, I will use the motion of a ball to describe ballistics. But the same principles will apply to any object in ballistic flight. Readers in Commonwealth countries can simply substitute cricket for baseball.
In these examples, I will presume that the ball is caught at the same level that it was thrown or hit, that the playing field is level and that there is no wind. I will neglect any air resistance on the ball.
Consider a ball that is hit or thrown upward at a given angle to the horizontal ground. Just like the hands on a clock, this initial angle determines how long the ball will remain in the air. If the force with which the ball is hit or thrown remains constant, the ball will cover the greatest horizontal distance when it is launched at a 45 degree angle. This is the point at which the horizontal and vertical components of the thrust are equal.
Because the ball is always falling vertically while it is progressing horizontally, a vertical distance is necessary to extend the horizontal distance that the ball travels. This is why the maximum horizontal distance is obtained at 45 degrees and not 0 degrees, because the ball stops when it meets the ground. Angles at which the ball are hit that are equidistant from 45 degrees, such as 30 and 60 degrees, will produce equal horizontal distances covered by the ballistic flight of the ball.
At a launch angle of 45 degrees, the maximum vertical height reached by the ball will be half that of the horizontal distance travelled by the ball. But the total vertical motion will be equal to the total horizontal motion. This is because the vertical motion in the course of the ball's flight consists of both ascension and descension, and the two must be added together.
The impact or throw which launched the ball into ballistic flight is instantaneous, but the gravity which acts on the ball is constant and continuous. This means simply that gravity drops the vertical velocity of the ball at a constant rate down to zero and then reverses it until it is at a negative value of the original velocity at the end of it's flight. The horizontal velocity of the ball, in contrast, is constant throughout the flight.
At launch angles above 45 degrees to the horizontal, the tangent of the angle gives the relationship of total vertical motion (ascension plus descension) to the horizontal distance covered by the ball. This means that at an angle with a tangent of 2, or 63.4 degrees, the maximum height that the ball reaches in flight is equal to the horizontal distance that it covers.
By the way, the way to measure how high a ball has climbed is to time it. Take the total time that the ball was in the air. Then divide that by two because the ball was ascending for only half of that time. Square the number of seconds and then multiply that by 16 feet or 4.9 meters. This presumes, once again, that the ball is caught at the same height above the horizontal that it was thrown or hit.
The total two-dimensional area of the air and the surface of the ground where the ball is overhead at some point during the flight will be shaped like a bell, as long as the ball was hit at an upward angle. This two-dimensional covered area increases as the launch angle of the ball increases, up to 45 degrees and then remains constant. The size of the two-dimensional covered area is in direct proportion to the time that the ball spends in the air, but not to the horizontal distance that it covers.
From the time that the ball is hit by the bat, the angle relative to the horizontal at which it flies is continuously and steadily decreasing. This is why the maximum altitude of a ball launched at 45 degrees is only half of the horizontal distance covered.
At the point of maximum altitude, this angle is zero and the course of the ball is briefly parallel to the horizontal ground. The angle of the ball's course then becomes negative as it heads back toward the ground. Finally, the ball is caught at the end of it's flight with a negative value of it's launch angle and velocity. The total span of angles that the course of the ball goes through is thus twice that of the initial angle at launch.
There, hopefully baseball will be a little bit more interesting this year.
When Water Is Green
This weekend is St. Patrick's Day, making it an appropriate time to have a look at why water sometimes appears as green. Niagara Falls is where green water is often to be seen. I recall one childhood day, I was on the Canadian side of Niagara Falls some distance upstream from the falls. The sun was high in the sky, and the water of the river was a vivid green. It was almost like the margins of this blog.
Ever since then I have had this idea of green water in my mind, and now I have finally gotten around to giving it some thought. Underwater plants are not the reason for water appearing green, because the water is light green and underwater plants tend to be particularly dark.
The reason that deep water tends to appear as blue is the fact that water absorbs light, but not all colors (colours) equally. The spectrum, from longest wavelength to shortest, is: red, orange, yellow, green and, blue.
Water is transparent because it's molecules line up due to hydrogen bonding so that light can pass between the molecules. Hydrogen bonding takes place because one side of the water molecule is more positive, and the other side more negatively-charged. This causes water molecules to line up positive-to-negative.
Blue light is the shortest in wavelength, meaning that it's wavelength has the easiest time "fitting through" the gaps between the lined-up molecules. Red, with the longest wavelength, has the most difficult time. Thus, red light is absorbed first by the water.
You may have noticed that, in underwater photography, there is nothing red below about 9 meters (30 feet). This is because red light has been absorbed by the time light from above reaches this depth. Deep water appears as blue because only blue light can pass through enough water to be refracted back to the surface.
Green light is next, after blue, for the shortest wavelength. Green light does not get through enough water to be refracted back to the surface by deep water. But green light can be reflected back to the surface if, in relatively shallow water, there is something to give green light a "boost' by reflecting it back. This then gives green light an "advantage" over blue, so that the water appears green.
Relatively shallow water, with a mostly-bare rock bottom, will tend to appear green. The water must be deep enough so that the bottom cannot actually be seen, and that a significant amount of refraction does take place. Green light, with it's longer wavelength than blue, gets through the water-air interface easier than blue so that green water typically appears more vividly green than blue water appears blue. Water upstream from the falls, around the Grand Island Bridges, tends to appear as more of a dull green, but this is because there is less bare rock on the river bottom.
This water-air interface, manifesting what we refer to as surface tension in the top layer of water molecules, is partially reflecting and reflects a lot of light back down. Some fish in shallow water can see what is around them by looking at this reflection from the surface. This operates in a way similar to a store window, in which you can see your reflection, it is partially transparent and partially reflecting. But electromagnetic waves, including light, are reflected by objects that are similar in size to their wavelengths and this gives green light, with it's longer wavelength, the advantage in getting through the water-air interface.
Turbulent water, although not white water, also tends to appear as green. This is also due to reflection from below. Tiny air bubbles in the water act as collective mirrors that reflect green light back to the surface.
Look at the photo at the top of this local newspaper. Water going over the falls, as well as the water about to go over, is a definite green http://www.niagara-gazette.com/ . Water in the gorge, downstream from the falls, also appears as green. The water in the gorge is very deep, so the green must come from reflection from underwater air bubbles rather than from the river bottom.
Water can rarely appear as blue-green if there is both shallow and deep water in close proximity. The deep water refracts blue back to the surface, while the nearby water reflects green back up. If you look at the article about Niagara Falls on http://www.wikipedia.org/ , or do a web search for "Niagara Falls Photos", it is easy to see that in the gorge below the falls, the more turbulent the water is, the more likely it is to appear green rather than blue.
Ever since then I have had this idea of green water in my mind, and now I have finally gotten around to giving it some thought. Underwater plants are not the reason for water appearing green, because the water is light green and underwater plants tend to be particularly dark.
The reason that deep water tends to appear as blue is the fact that water absorbs light, but not all colors (colours) equally. The spectrum, from longest wavelength to shortest, is: red, orange, yellow, green and, blue.
Water is transparent because it's molecules line up due to hydrogen bonding so that light can pass between the molecules. Hydrogen bonding takes place because one side of the water molecule is more positive, and the other side more negatively-charged. This causes water molecules to line up positive-to-negative.
Blue light is the shortest in wavelength, meaning that it's wavelength has the easiest time "fitting through" the gaps between the lined-up molecules. Red, with the longest wavelength, has the most difficult time. Thus, red light is absorbed first by the water.
You may have noticed that, in underwater photography, there is nothing red below about 9 meters (30 feet). This is because red light has been absorbed by the time light from above reaches this depth. Deep water appears as blue because only blue light can pass through enough water to be refracted back to the surface.
Green light is next, after blue, for the shortest wavelength. Green light does not get through enough water to be refracted back to the surface by deep water. But green light can be reflected back to the surface if, in relatively shallow water, there is something to give green light a "boost' by reflecting it back. This then gives green light an "advantage" over blue, so that the water appears green.
Relatively shallow water, with a mostly-bare rock bottom, will tend to appear green. The water must be deep enough so that the bottom cannot actually be seen, and that a significant amount of refraction does take place. Green light, with it's longer wavelength than blue, gets through the water-air interface easier than blue so that green water typically appears more vividly green than blue water appears blue. Water upstream from the falls, around the Grand Island Bridges, tends to appear as more of a dull green, but this is because there is less bare rock on the river bottom.
This water-air interface, manifesting what we refer to as surface tension in the top layer of water molecules, is partially reflecting and reflects a lot of light back down. Some fish in shallow water can see what is around them by looking at this reflection from the surface. This operates in a way similar to a store window, in which you can see your reflection, it is partially transparent and partially reflecting. But electromagnetic waves, including light, are reflected by objects that are similar in size to their wavelengths and this gives green light, with it's longer wavelength, the advantage in getting through the water-air interface.
Turbulent water, although not white water, also tends to appear as green. This is also due to reflection from below. Tiny air bubbles in the water act as collective mirrors that reflect green light back to the surface.
Look at the photo at the top of this local newspaper. Water going over the falls, as well as the water about to go over, is a definite green http://www.niagara-gazette.com/ . Water in the gorge, downstream from the falls, also appears as green. The water in the gorge is very deep, so the green must come from reflection from underwater air bubbles rather than from the river bottom.
Water can rarely appear as blue-green if there is both shallow and deep water in close proximity. The deep water refracts blue back to the surface, while the nearby water reflects green back up. If you look at the article about Niagara Falls on http://www.wikipedia.org/ , or do a web search for "Niagara Falls Photos", it is easy to see that in the gorge below the falls, the more turbulent the water is, the more likely it is to appear green rather than blue.
Atoms And Color
Today, I would like to discuss one of those questions of the ages that I have wondered about for a long time but cannot find much in the way of satisfactory answers. We see things all around us as being of different colors. Some things are red, while others are blue or green. But exactly why would an object be red, rather than blue or green or any other colour? We will alternate the two global spellings of the word color (colour).
In the article about color on http://www.wikipedia.org/ , for example, it has all of the usual information about how the eye perceives colour as well as how light is reflected and refracted and optical illusions and, so on. But, while that is valuable information, it still does not tell us why a red object is red while a blue object is blue.
Color is not actually real, at least not in terms of inanimate matter. Outside of living things, the concept of colour is meaningless. The colors that we see are the result of how our brains interpret information from the eyes. The colours of visible light are a narrow section of the entire electromagnetic spectrum.
Color represents electromgnetic waves, received by the eyes, of different wavelengths. The colours, from longest wavelength and lowest frequency to shortest wavelength and highest frequency are: red, orange, yellow, green, blue and, violet. The entire electromganetic spectrum, from longest wavelength is: radio waves, infrared (heat), visible light, ultraviolet (provides suntan), X-rays and, gamma rays.
Most of the light that we see is not of one color, but of pastels and shades. White is all colours mixed together, and black is the complete absence of light. Gray is a mix of black and white, and brown is a mix of some colors but not all of them.
A lot of work has been done with spectroscopy, analyzing the light from various glowing matter in distant stars and laboratories to determine composition. But that still does not tell us why, in ordinary light, a red object is red while a blue object is blue.
We know that an object appears as of a certain colour because the object absorbs most of the light which falls on it, but reflects the light of a certain wavelength. It is the light which is reflected, rather than absorbed, by the object that our eyes and brains interpret as the color of the object. It must be the nature of the atoms and molecules of which the object (or the paint covering it) is composed which will determine which colour the object will appear to us.
One interesting effect of atomic and molecular structure on light is transparency. A few materials, such as water and some crystals, appear to us as transparent to light. This is because atoms arranged in an orderly structure throughout the material permit light to pass right through the gaps in between.
This alignment of atoms is not perfect, however, and if a transparent material is thick enough then light will be absorbed before it can reach the other side. Have you ever noticed that, in underwater photos, nothing appears as red below depths of around 30 feet (about 9 meters)?
This is because red light, with the longest wavelength, has the most difficulty "squeezing" between the molecules of water and so is the first to be absorbed. The reason that deep water tends to appear blue is that only blue light, with the shortest wavelength, can get through enough water to be refracted back to the surface. Violet light actually has the shortest wavelength, but our eyes are not very sensitive to violet.
I decided to begin by going over the chemical elements, and seeing if there was any patterns in their colors.
Let's briefly review the periodic table of the elements, in which elements are arranged in rows by the number of protons and electrons in an atom of the element, and in columns by the number of electrons in the outermost electron shell, which tends to determine the chemical properties of the element.
Here is a link to an excellent periodic table. Hold the pointer over an element and it will give you the electron configuarion of that element: http://www.ptable.com/
In ordinary atoms, there is an equal number of positively-charged protons in the nucleus and negatively-charged electrons in orbital shells around the nucleus, so that the atom has an overall neutral charge. If an atom has one more, or one less, electron, so that there is not an overall charge balance, the resulting charged atom is known as an ion.
The lightest atom is hydrogen, with one electron in orbit around one proton. The next is helium, with two electrons in orbit around a nucleus of two protons. This is what defines the elements, the number of protons in the nucleus. Each element has it's own number of protons, an atom with 26 protons has to be iron and cannot be anything else.
Atoms get heavier as the atomic number, the number of protons, increases. But we cannot determine the weight of the element with this alone because their is another particle in the nucleus called the neutron, so-called because of it's neutral charge. Neutrons are necessary as a kind of glue to hold the nucleus together against the mutually repulsive force of the positively-charged protons. Some elements can have several different numbers of neutrons in one of their atoms, each of these possible different numbers of neutrons in a stable atom of an element is known as an isotope.
When I name an element, I will give it's atomic number in parenthesis such as carbon (6).
The electrons which orbit the nucleus in an atom fit into very orderly shells, and are not haphazard like the planets in orbit around a star. The numbers of electrons in shells, moving outward from the nucleus, are known as the atom's electron configuration.
Carbon, for example, has two atoms in it's innermost shell, and four in an outer shell. This totals six electrons, which matches the number of protons in it's nucleus. The column of elements below carbon all have four electrons in their outer orbitals, meaning that they tend to have properties similar to that of carbon, even though they are all heavier than carbon.
We know that electromagnetic waves tend to be reflected by barriers that are similar in size to their wavelengths. A simple example of this is how the signal from a long-wave radio station, such as AM (amplitude modulation) in North America, will fade as you drive under a bridge, while a shorter-wave station, such as FM (frequency modulation), will not. The longer wave is reflected away by the bridge, while the shorter wave can reflect off the road and sides to get under the bridge.
I found that there are three separate ways in which elements handle reflected light, and this explains why objects are the colours that they are.
THE SIMPLE SPECTRUM OF LIGHT NON-METALS
Let's begin with carbon (6). Carbon atoms are below the range of reflecting light alone. This is why substances composed of carbon appear black. We know that black is the absence of light, meaning that virtually all light falling on carbon is absorbed by it. We also know that carbon forms extremely complex molecular structures. In fact, it forms far more different molecules than all of the other elements combined.
What happens is obvious. The carbon atoms themselves are too small to reflect any wavelength of light that we can see, but light can "get lost" and be absorbed in the very complex molecular structures associated with carbon. This is why coal and graphite appear as a dense black.
A few years ago, I happened to place several copper pennies that I had in my pocket on a shelf. I recently came across them and found that the pennies were partially covered by a bright blue-green corrosion. We know that this corrosion is caused by the copper slowly combining with oxygen (8).
We usually cannot see oxygen (8) because it is a gas in the air, and it's atoms are too far apart to relect any light that we can see. But this means that, if we could see oxygen, it would be a blue-green. Blue is the light with the shortest wavelength, and this is the beginning of the simple spectrum of light non-metals.
Generally, the elements are not very colorful in appearance. But notice that there is a block of four elements together on the periodic table which are quite colourful. There is oxygen (8), and below it on the table is sulfur (sulphur) (16), this element is a brilliant yellow.
Immediately following oxygen in atomic number is fluorine (9), which is a yellow gas. Below fluorine on the table is chlorine (17), which is a greenish-yellow gas.
It may be that nitrogen (7) would be blue, if we could get enough of it together to reflect light. But it is very unreactive so that it usually remains as a gas making up most of the air.
Notice that, to be colorful, an element in this spectrum must have enough electrons in it's outer shell. Oxygen (8) and sulfur (sulphur) (16) have six, while fluorine (9) and chlorine (17) have seven.
It would seem that atoms to the right of these, neon (10) and argon (18) should also be brilliant in colour. But, as with nitrogen (7) that is prevented by chemistry. The atoms of elements in the rightmost column on the table are very unreactive.
The simple spectrum of light non-metals is completed by bromine (35). This atom is much larger than the others, and so reflects a longer wavelength. Bromine (35) has the same seven electrons in it's outermost shell that fluorine (9) and chlorine (17) have. It's color is a deep red, it is known as the only element other than mercury that is liquid at ordinary temperatures.
THE METAL SPECTRUM
The thing that makes colour so complicated is that metals handle light in a fundamentally different way than non-metals, such as those described above. Most elements are metals, let's briefly review the difference between metals and non-metals.
In a metal, outer electrons are shared with sorrounding atoms. This creates a bond that allows metals to be bent and shaped without breaking. This is why metals appear with the luster that non-metals do not have, light is reflecting off this "sea" of shared electrons. If a voltage pressure is applied to the metal, it causes these free, or non-local, electrons to move in one direction, thus creating electricity.
In non-metals, this is not the case as outer-shell electrons tend to remain with their own atoms. Although a non-metal atom can lose an electron to another, creating an ionic bond between the two atoms because one would then have a positive charge, and the other a negative. Non-metal atoms sometimes can share electrons, creating a covalent bond, but only within the same molecule.
For our purposes here, imagine the atoms of a metal as several bowling balls, or other heavy spheres, in a shallow tub. If we now add water to the tub, so that most, but not all, of the surfaces of the spheres is under water, we have a good model of metal atoms in that the spheres represent the atoms and the sorrounding water represents the mass of electrons shared between the atoms.
Almost all metals appear as silvery, some with a whitish or grayish component. This is because the shared electrons, the surface of the water in our model, provides a virtually flat surface off which all colors will reflect. All colours mixed together give us white, and the effect of the shared electrons on the light is to give it that metallic silvery appearance.
But there are two commonly-known metals that are an exception to this, copper (29) and gold (79). It is these two elements which I have identified as forming the metal spectrum. The thing that is of such great significance is that the order of the metal spectrum is actually a reversal of that of the simple spectrum of non-metals. This is because metals handle light differently.
I did not investigate colors of the so-called rare earth metal elements at the upper end of the periodic table in doing this study because I wanted to stay with elements that most people would be familiar with, or at least have heard of.
To understand how the heavier elements, in particular, handle light, we have to remember that an atom is mostly empty space. If an atom were the size of a house, the nucleus might be the size of a pea in the center of the house. The rest of the atom would be the electrons in their orbitals around the nucleus.
My hypothesis is that only light which approaches the outer electrons of an atom at close to a perpendicular angle to the orbital path of the electron will be reflected by the atom, the rest of the light will be absorbed. I find that, once we accept that, the colours of the elements seem to fall right into place.
Why on earth, if objects including atoms reflect electromagnetic radiation similar in wavelength to their sizes, does copper (29) have it's red-orange color, while the much larger gold (79) atom reflect yellow light, which is of a shorter wavelength?
The answer lies in the difference between metals and non-metals. The delocalized electrons, shared between atoms, in metals act as a flat reflecting surface which should reflect all colours. But in copper (29), the top parts of the atoms protruding above this flat surface act as "speedbumps" which hinder the reflection of light by changing the angle at which the light is approaching the surface. The red and orange light, having the longest wavelengths, is thus affected least by this disruption in the surface of the copper, and these are the colors that end up being reflected.
But in the much larger gold (79) atom, the red and orange which is reflected by copper does not have a long enough wavelength to be reflected in the same way. However a shorter wavelength, such as yellow, will perceive the curvature of the gold (79) atom as more of a flat surface, relative to it's wavelength, than will the longer wavelength red and orange light will. But if the light is too short in wavelength, such as blue, there is less surface of the curved atom off which it will reflect. This is why gold reflects yellow light as that shimmering colour that has enchanted people for thousands of years.
The result is that the metal spectrum is reversed so that larger atoms reflect light of shorter wavelength. If there was a much larger metal atom, which reflected light in the same way as copper and gold, it would appear as green or blue.
THE BLUE METALS
Finally, we come to the third way in which elements handle light. There are a number of metals that are of the usual silvery appearance, but which also have a blue tinge to their colour. These include chromium (24), zinc (30), gallium (31), tin (50), osmium (76) and, lead (82).
There is a simple, and fascinating, explanation for this. All of these elements, except chromium (24), have eighteen electrons in their semi-outer shell, and four or fewer electrons in the outer shell. Light reflects off the semi-outer shell, with the electrons in the outer shell acting as a shutter which very quickly opens and closes. Only light with the shortest wavelength, which is blue, can get through the "shutter" system to reflect back.
By the way, there is a definite connection between a shell of eighteen electrons and the reflection of light. Copper and gold, as well as bromine, all have eighteen electrons in their semi-outer shells. Copper and gold only have one outer electron, and this is not enough to act as a shutter to cut off all except blue light. Chromium is an exception in that it is a bluish metal with only thirteen electrons in the semi-outer shell, but it has only one electron in the outer shell.
Of course, most of the matter that we see consists of compounds rather than elements. But similar rules apply in explaining which wavelengths of light are absorbed, and which are reflected to give the compound it's color.
Consider rust, for example. Iron is a silvery metal in appearance. But when it combines with oxygen, this breaks up the metallic surface which reflects all colours of light. There are now gaps in the surface, into which light is absorbed. It is only light of the longest wavelength, red, which can span these gaps to be reflected back. Rust is dark red because the red is combined with the black of light lost and absorbed.
In the article about color on http://www.wikipedia.org/ , for example, it has all of the usual information about how the eye perceives colour as well as how light is reflected and refracted and optical illusions and, so on. But, while that is valuable information, it still does not tell us why a red object is red while a blue object is blue.
Color is not actually real, at least not in terms of inanimate matter. Outside of living things, the concept of colour is meaningless. The colors that we see are the result of how our brains interpret information from the eyes. The colours of visible light are a narrow section of the entire electromagnetic spectrum.
Color represents electromgnetic waves, received by the eyes, of different wavelengths. The colours, from longest wavelength and lowest frequency to shortest wavelength and highest frequency are: red, orange, yellow, green, blue and, violet. The entire electromganetic spectrum, from longest wavelength is: radio waves, infrared (heat), visible light, ultraviolet (provides suntan), X-rays and, gamma rays.
Most of the light that we see is not of one color, but of pastels and shades. White is all colours mixed together, and black is the complete absence of light. Gray is a mix of black and white, and brown is a mix of some colors but not all of them.
A lot of work has been done with spectroscopy, analyzing the light from various glowing matter in distant stars and laboratories to determine composition. But that still does not tell us why, in ordinary light, a red object is red while a blue object is blue.
We know that an object appears as of a certain colour because the object absorbs most of the light which falls on it, but reflects the light of a certain wavelength. It is the light which is reflected, rather than absorbed, by the object that our eyes and brains interpret as the color of the object. It must be the nature of the atoms and molecules of which the object (or the paint covering it) is composed which will determine which colour the object will appear to us.
One interesting effect of atomic and molecular structure on light is transparency. A few materials, such as water and some crystals, appear to us as transparent to light. This is because atoms arranged in an orderly structure throughout the material permit light to pass right through the gaps in between.
This alignment of atoms is not perfect, however, and if a transparent material is thick enough then light will be absorbed before it can reach the other side. Have you ever noticed that, in underwater photos, nothing appears as red below depths of around 30 feet (about 9 meters)?
This is because red light, with the longest wavelength, has the most difficulty "squeezing" between the molecules of water and so is the first to be absorbed. The reason that deep water tends to appear blue is that only blue light, with the shortest wavelength, can get through enough water to be refracted back to the surface. Violet light actually has the shortest wavelength, but our eyes are not very sensitive to violet.
I decided to begin by going over the chemical elements, and seeing if there was any patterns in their colors.
Let's briefly review the periodic table of the elements, in which elements are arranged in rows by the number of protons and electrons in an atom of the element, and in columns by the number of electrons in the outermost electron shell, which tends to determine the chemical properties of the element.
Here is a link to an excellent periodic table. Hold the pointer over an element and it will give you the electron configuarion of that element: http://www.ptable.com/
In ordinary atoms, there is an equal number of positively-charged protons in the nucleus and negatively-charged electrons in orbital shells around the nucleus, so that the atom has an overall neutral charge. If an atom has one more, or one less, electron, so that there is not an overall charge balance, the resulting charged atom is known as an ion.
The lightest atom is hydrogen, with one electron in orbit around one proton. The next is helium, with two electrons in orbit around a nucleus of two protons. This is what defines the elements, the number of protons in the nucleus. Each element has it's own number of protons, an atom with 26 protons has to be iron and cannot be anything else.
Atoms get heavier as the atomic number, the number of protons, increases. But we cannot determine the weight of the element with this alone because their is another particle in the nucleus called the neutron, so-called because of it's neutral charge. Neutrons are necessary as a kind of glue to hold the nucleus together against the mutually repulsive force of the positively-charged protons. Some elements can have several different numbers of neutrons in one of their atoms, each of these possible different numbers of neutrons in a stable atom of an element is known as an isotope.
When I name an element, I will give it's atomic number in parenthesis such as carbon (6).
The electrons which orbit the nucleus in an atom fit into very orderly shells, and are not haphazard like the planets in orbit around a star. The numbers of electrons in shells, moving outward from the nucleus, are known as the atom's electron configuration.
Carbon, for example, has two atoms in it's innermost shell, and four in an outer shell. This totals six electrons, which matches the number of protons in it's nucleus. The column of elements below carbon all have four electrons in their outer orbitals, meaning that they tend to have properties similar to that of carbon, even though they are all heavier than carbon.
We know that electromagnetic waves tend to be reflected by barriers that are similar in size to their wavelengths. A simple example of this is how the signal from a long-wave radio station, such as AM (amplitude modulation) in North America, will fade as you drive under a bridge, while a shorter-wave station, such as FM (frequency modulation), will not. The longer wave is reflected away by the bridge, while the shorter wave can reflect off the road and sides to get under the bridge.
I found that there are three separate ways in which elements handle reflected light, and this explains why objects are the colours that they are.
THE SIMPLE SPECTRUM OF LIGHT NON-METALS
Let's begin with carbon (6). Carbon atoms are below the range of reflecting light alone. This is why substances composed of carbon appear black. We know that black is the absence of light, meaning that virtually all light falling on carbon is absorbed by it. We also know that carbon forms extremely complex molecular structures. In fact, it forms far more different molecules than all of the other elements combined.
What happens is obvious. The carbon atoms themselves are too small to reflect any wavelength of light that we can see, but light can "get lost" and be absorbed in the very complex molecular structures associated with carbon. This is why coal and graphite appear as a dense black.
A few years ago, I happened to place several copper pennies that I had in my pocket on a shelf. I recently came across them and found that the pennies were partially covered by a bright blue-green corrosion. We know that this corrosion is caused by the copper slowly combining with oxygen (8).
We usually cannot see oxygen (8) because it is a gas in the air, and it's atoms are too far apart to relect any light that we can see. But this means that, if we could see oxygen, it would be a blue-green. Blue is the light with the shortest wavelength, and this is the beginning of the simple spectrum of light non-metals.
Generally, the elements are not very colorful in appearance. But notice that there is a block of four elements together on the periodic table which are quite colourful. There is oxygen (8), and below it on the table is sulfur (sulphur) (16), this element is a brilliant yellow.
Immediately following oxygen in atomic number is fluorine (9), which is a yellow gas. Below fluorine on the table is chlorine (17), which is a greenish-yellow gas.
It may be that nitrogen (7) would be blue, if we could get enough of it together to reflect light. But it is very unreactive so that it usually remains as a gas making up most of the air.
Notice that, to be colorful, an element in this spectrum must have enough electrons in it's outer shell. Oxygen (8) and sulfur (sulphur) (16) have six, while fluorine (9) and chlorine (17) have seven.
It would seem that atoms to the right of these, neon (10) and argon (18) should also be brilliant in colour. But, as with nitrogen (7) that is prevented by chemistry. The atoms of elements in the rightmost column on the table are very unreactive.
The simple spectrum of light non-metals is completed by bromine (35). This atom is much larger than the others, and so reflects a longer wavelength. Bromine (35) has the same seven electrons in it's outermost shell that fluorine (9) and chlorine (17) have. It's color is a deep red, it is known as the only element other than mercury that is liquid at ordinary temperatures.
THE METAL SPECTRUM
The thing that makes colour so complicated is that metals handle light in a fundamentally different way than non-metals, such as those described above. Most elements are metals, let's briefly review the difference between metals and non-metals.
In a metal, outer electrons are shared with sorrounding atoms. This creates a bond that allows metals to be bent and shaped without breaking. This is why metals appear with the luster that non-metals do not have, light is reflecting off this "sea" of shared electrons. If a voltage pressure is applied to the metal, it causes these free, or non-local, electrons to move in one direction, thus creating electricity.
In non-metals, this is not the case as outer-shell electrons tend to remain with their own atoms. Although a non-metal atom can lose an electron to another, creating an ionic bond between the two atoms because one would then have a positive charge, and the other a negative. Non-metal atoms sometimes can share electrons, creating a covalent bond, but only within the same molecule.
For our purposes here, imagine the atoms of a metal as several bowling balls, or other heavy spheres, in a shallow tub. If we now add water to the tub, so that most, but not all, of the surfaces of the spheres is under water, we have a good model of metal atoms in that the spheres represent the atoms and the sorrounding water represents the mass of electrons shared between the atoms.
Almost all metals appear as silvery, some with a whitish or grayish component. This is because the shared electrons, the surface of the water in our model, provides a virtually flat surface off which all colors will reflect. All colours mixed together give us white, and the effect of the shared electrons on the light is to give it that metallic silvery appearance.
But there are two commonly-known metals that are an exception to this, copper (29) and gold (79). It is these two elements which I have identified as forming the metal spectrum. The thing that is of such great significance is that the order of the metal spectrum is actually a reversal of that of the simple spectrum of non-metals. This is because metals handle light differently.
I did not investigate colors of the so-called rare earth metal elements at the upper end of the periodic table in doing this study because I wanted to stay with elements that most people would be familiar with, or at least have heard of.
To understand how the heavier elements, in particular, handle light, we have to remember that an atom is mostly empty space. If an atom were the size of a house, the nucleus might be the size of a pea in the center of the house. The rest of the atom would be the electrons in their orbitals around the nucleus.
My hypothesis is that only light which approaches the outer electrons of an atom at close to a perpendicular angle to the orbital path of the electron will be reflected by the atom, the rest of the light will be absorbed. I find that, once we accept that, the colours of the elements seem to fall right into place.
Why on earth, if objects including atoms reflect electromagnetic radiation similar in wavelength to their sizes, does copper (29) have it's red-orange color, while the much larger gold (79) atom reflect yellow light, which is of a shorter wavelength?
The answer lies in the difference between metals and non-metals. The delocalized electrons, shared between atoms, in metals act as a flat reflecting surface which should reflect all colours. But in copper (29), the top parts of the atoms protruding above this flat surface act as "speedbumps" which hinder the reflection of light by changing the angle at which the light is approaching the surface. The red and orange light, having the longest wavelengths, is thus affected least by this disruption in the surface of the copper, and these are the colors that end up being reflected.
But in the much larger gold (79) atom, the red and orange which is reflected by copper does not have a long enough wavelength to be reflected in the same way. However a shorter wavelength, such as yellow, will perceive the curvature of the gold (79) atom as more of a flat surface, relative to it's wavelength, than will the longer wavelength red and orange light will. But if the light is too short in wavelength, such as blue, there is less surface of the curved atom off which it will reflect. This is why gold reflects yellow light as that shimmering colour that has enchanted people for thousands of years.
The result is that the metal spectrum is reversed so that larger atoms reflect light of shorter wavelength. If there was a much larger metal atom, which reflected light in the same way as copper and gold, it would appear as green or blue.
THE BLUE METALS
Finally, we come to the third way in which elements handle light. There are a number of metals that are of the usual silvery appearance, but which also have a blue tinge to their colour. These include chromium (24), zinc (30), gallium (31), tin (50), osmium (76) and, lead (82).
There is a simple, and fascinating, explanation for this. All of these elements, except chromium (24), have eighteen electrons in their semi-outer shell, and four or fewer electrons in the outer shell. Light reflects off the semi-outer shell, with the electrons in the outer shell acting as a shutter which very quickly opens and closes. Only light with the shortest wavelength, which is blue, can get through the "shutter" system to reflect back.
By the way, there is a definite connection between a shell of eighteen electrons and the reflection of light. Copper and gold, as well as bromine, all have eighteen electrons in their semi-outer shells. Copper and gold only have one outer electron, and this is not enough to act as a shutter to cut off all except blue light. Chromium is an exception in that it is a bluish metal with only thirteen electrons in the semi-outer shell, but it has only one electron in the outer shell.
Of course, most of the matter that we see consists of compounds rather than elements. But similar rules apply in explaining which wavelengths of light are absorbed, and which are reflected to give the compound it's color.
Consider rust, for example. Iron is a silvery metal in appearance. But when it combines with oxygen, this breaks up the metallic surface which reflects all colours of light. There are now gaps in the surface, into which light is absorbed. It is only light of the longest wavelength, red, which can span these gaps to be reflected back. Rust is dark red because the red is combined with the black of light lost and absorbed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)