In my last post I said I’d be working on the revision of the Counterevidence Paper and that new posts would be about updates to it.
Well, I wasn’t completely wrong. I started with a complete rewrite of the manuscript. Before, I thought I’d just change the bits where I had new information on. However, after realizing the way matter exists in a double-helical twisted state, I knew I had to focus on that.
So, I started by first writing a step-by-step introduction to the topic, with a list of proposals relating to the string-nature of light and matter. Once I had written the introduction, I started to write down the proof for the proposals. And just about immediately I realized I wasn’t happy about my old interpretation of the Rydberg formula. Or more to the point, considering my mathematical precision regarding the equations describing the quasi-spherical shape of the electron and the proton, I was struck by the vagueness of my interpretation of the absorption of light by Van der Waals molecules of hydrogen.
In the paper I take the Rydberg formula and rewrite it as:
There are no changes to the original formula that could make it wrong, but on the other hand what I said about what it meant was no longer satisfying to me. I said:
In this representation, illustrated in Figure 1, λvac not only denotes the wavelength of light, but also a physical diameter of a supramolecular shell from which a quantum of light is released. What this interpretation means is that there is an initial state of supramolecular shells with a diameter of λvac/n'. By a yet unknown mechanism, the electrons introduced as current in a hydrogen lamp couple with this initial state to form an intermediate supramolecular shell with a diameter of λvac. This intermediate state then splits into final shells, with a diameter of λvac/n. What this interpretation implies is that there are n' ² initial shells, one intermediary shell, and n² final shells.
The problem is that the phrase: “By a yet unknown mechanism”. It’s more or less the archetype of “and then a miracle occurs”. It sounds like it’s not even wrong. I have to do something about it.
So, what can I do? Perhaps making an illustration of a Van der Waals bonded array of hydrogen molecules helps.
Below are two Van der Waals bonded hydrogen molecules side by side (viewed from above and from the side, with the side view blocking the strings behind). The four colors of curved arrows indicate that the array of two molecules actually represent and section of a much longer Van der Waals molecule. The green and red colors indicate two orbitals that go through the whole Van der Waals molecule. The yellow and blue colors indicate that the rest of the hydrogen orbital split to two halves that are shared with the neighboring molecules.
The energy of the pairwise hydrogen bonding is miniscule, 0.06 kJ/mol, which is almost nothing compared to the covalent carbon-carbon bond of 347 kJ/mol (about 170 parts per million compared to the C-C bond). The energy per bond is 0.6 meV (millielectronvolts), while the mass of an electron is 0.511 MeV (megaelectronvolts). The difference between the two is about 850 000 -fold.
I began to play around with the energies/masses of different fractions of the supramolecular shells and trying to understand through these and then it hit me: the energy of the absorbed supraphoton is enough to break each and every van der Waals bond in the supramolecular shell at the Lyman limit! So, what takes place, when a supraphoton is absorbed, is that all of the hydrogen molecules previously bound to the doubly spherical shell become free for an instant. However, as soon as the molecules encounter another hydrogen molecule, they bond again, until the original van der Waals molecule has been reconstructed.
So how can there be larger supramolecular shells? Because while there is an upper limit to the curvature of supramolecular shells, there doesn’t seem to be a lower limit for it. This means that if you put energy into a supramolecular shell, you can make it smaller and if you take energy out of it, you make it bigger. To be honest, I’m still struggling with the concept. Luckily, I have the simplified physical representation of the rewritten Rydberg formula, or the picture with the yellow balls. This means that there is 13.6 eV more mass in a fully bent van der Waals bond than in an unbent one. Whether the experimentally observed van der Waals bonding bonding energy of two hydrogen molecules refers to the bent or unbent state isn’t really clear to me. There is still the possibility that in a fully unbent state, there is no mass added to the bond. That is, the mass/energy of two independent hydrogen molecules and an unbent pair of van der Waals bonded hydrogen molecules might be the same. That the only reason why the orbitals are coupled is there are no external forces separating them.
What this seems to mean is that the lowest energy state for a van der Waals molecule of hydrogen would be an infinitely large doubly-spherical sphere. The largest detected emission by hydrogen is the hydrogen line, or 21 cm. After this, there is no emission or absorption. Does it mean that 21 cm is the largest van der Waals molecule of hydrogen? Experimental evidence says no. Only roughly one sixth of matter interact with electromagnetic field. The rest, or roughly five sixths, don’t. So, the assumption is that this dark matter are van der Waals molecules of hydrogen, larger than 21 cm. Easy-peasy. Dark matter solved.
I was about to go to different places in this post, but once I realized this dark matter connection, I decided that this is where I stop today. I had already toyed around with this idea last October, but didn’t have a good enough overall picture to make a compelling case. Even today, I don’t have the whole thing sorted out, but I feel like in a similar place as I was in the description of the electron two months ago. Now I have a rough hypothesis that I can test. As with the electron, it will take some time to sort things out. I’m bound to make errors, because mathematics is unforgiving. It’s either correct or not. So I really need to understand the mathematical basis of the Rydberg formula to be able to claim anything about dark matter. But I think I’ll be able to sort things out. I did it with the electron, didn’t I?
Comments