Part of being a proper scientist is to admit being wrong. And boy, was I wrong about helium. My only excuse is that no one else had a good idea of the orbital, so I had to make a guess.
My educated guess is that the neutron is just the proton/electron orbital flipped 180° around itself, so that the proton/electron orbital and the neutron form a ‘butterfly pattern’. This is shown in the scheme below, with the blue orbitals indicating proton/electron and the yellow orbitals indicating neutron. The scheme gives my best guess of the whole helium atom, with two proton/electron orbitals and two neutrons. I couldn’t tell whether the angles are perfectly correct, but it looks just about right.
The whole mess was a direct result of me assuming that the hydrogen orbital are the two spherical halves. Trying to figure out the fused orbital, assuming this was just doomed to fail. It did sort of look pretty. In retrospect it should’ve been clear that the orbital couldn’t be this vague. I tried to guess how the four orbitals of two protons and two neutrons fitted together instead of finding the only possible way this bonding would take place.
I had already (almost) figured out the deuterium orbital almost four weeks ago. But only almost. You see, while the shape of the orbital around one sphere was correct, I still thought the orbital was of just half of deuterium. That deuterium would either be two spheres of identical shape, or half fused and half closer to the butterfly shape above. Even halfway through my previous post about the universal bond, I still had the idea of the double-spherical orbital. Only at the end I posed the question:
However, here comes the million-dollar question: is hydrogen atom the two spherical orbitals or just one half?
At the end of the post, I wasn’t sure yet, but today I’m convinced. The orbital of a single proton is a sphere where the string enters and exits from the same direction. This means that you can never have half an orbital. And as I already speculated, the orbital of a deuterium is such that the strings enter and exit at the opposite direction. Thus you can (at least in principle) have a single spherical deuterium orbital.
But following with this logic, what does the orbital of helium look like, then? As usual, I started fitting these deuterium orbitals together, as helium is deuterium x 2 (in proton and neutrons). First, I considered putting one deuterium on top of another, but soon realized that this will just make a supramolecular shell of deuterium: not a new, fused, molecule. Rather, the only way to fuse the two orbitals is to link the strings sideways. To do it properly, one must stretch the orbitals to meet. This stretching loses a piece of string: the reason fusion releases so much energy. However, to get a rough idea of the fused orbital, I placed to orbitals side by side and immediately saw that the basic concept was solid.
So, here it is. The final piece of the puzzle. The explanation of strong force/interaction. Or was it the weak force/interaction? I think it’s this way around. The strong interaction is the rearrangement of the strings into nuclei larger than a single proton, whereas the weak interaction is the ‘tension’ of strings within nuclei compressing against each other. Or vice versa. But either way, these are the two nuclear forces.
And as we remember from before, charge is just spinning and gravity is the inertia of the celestial supramolecular shells of hydrogen moving in a common frame of reference pressing against smaller supramolecular shells and the ultimately larger objects, such as planets and stars. Relativity probably explains this well, but as I don’t quite follow the link, I’ll probably have to revisit gravity at some point as well. It might not need changes, but I’m not 100 % sure about that. Or more specifically, I don’t think the mathematics needs changes, but there might (or might not) be something fishy about the interpretation what the mathematics of relativity mean.
But who am I kidding. I'm goin to post more and still find more things where I was wrong and revisit those things as well. But why do I do this in blog form and not in scientific manuscripts in peer-reviewed journals? Because I'm not ready to play the game. What I'm proposing is so outlandish, that I probably even have to tackle gravity, at least on some scale to propose this to be the theory of everything.
But if you google theory of everything, don't you already get to the Wikipedia page on string theory? Yes you do, but not to this kind of string theory. The big problem is that the language of science is mathematics, not logic. What this means that if I don't have the mathematics to back my claim up, I won't be heard. So I just have to patiently figure out the rest of the mathematics.
Comments