In my last post I made the link with the spherical orbital of the unpaired double helix of an electron and my circular arc model of the hydrogen molecule and asked the question:
And what would happen if a proton and an electron combine? The electron, which is equivalent to a gamma photon (of a specific wavelength) adds one more loop to the even-numbered loops in a proton. When I bend a helix with an even number of turns, the spherical structure doesn’t look too different externally, but we know it behaves in a markedly different way, as this structure is a hydrogen radical. As a hydrogen radical doesn’t have a twist/charge, it can bind to pretty much any molecule, being incorporated into the structure.
And I showed this structure for the hydrogen radical:
This is a spherical curve with a paired number of turns.
However, I had already noted that with a paired number of turns, we don’t have to ‘choke’ the double-helical cylinder. But it wasn’t yet clear to me that there’s no way that the helical curve would form a sphere with paired turns.
Let me explain. A paired number of turns means that there isn’t a single double-helical orbital but rather two separate orbitals that are fully interlinked. Shown here in two colors:
Of course, the double helical orbital of a hydrogen molecule isn’t a full circle, but the collection of circular arcs, as I've described before:
Next, we can ignore hydrogen gas for a while and look at the hydrogen atoms in water, or H2O. In the counterevidence paper I describe how the friction of two neighboring supramolecular shells causes protons to be released from the water molecules being ground together.
Well, what happens here is that the neat hydrogen atom, this time bound to an oxygen atom is screwed off, but not as a single atom, but rather as a proton, where an electron is left in the oxygen atom still bound to the supramolecular shell. How the remaining electron influences the oxygen, is left open. I’ll have to revisit that later. So, the proton lacks a turn, which means that the two helices, previously separated, become a single orbital. But we learned before that this fusing of the orbitals causes the loops to expand to the point where they form the orbit described with the electron orbital equation, but just with different constants and with the opposite twist. However, the biggest difference between a proton and an electron is a nearly 2000-fold difference in mass .
Next, we can think a bit about topology. The specific number of turns in a hydrogen atom is one more than in a proton. However, when the proton is detached, the number of turns cannot change. This means that the number of loops in a proton is one fewer than the number of turns in hydrogen atom. And if an electron is a single turn, then the number of turns in a proton is 938.27/0.511 ≈ 1836.1. The fact that this isn’t a discreet number (ending with .00…) points to a) me being wrong or b) that things aren’t exactly as simple as that. But this is a good starting point. If I claim something specific, it’s easier to prove myself right or wrong, versus me not even hazarding a guess.
So, does this mean that the proton is the key to solving the question of the constants in the electron orbital equation? Quite possibly. But even more likely, there is a clear interplay with the electron, proton and hydrogen atom/molecule. Even if I don’t have a good idea what this interplay is, solving this will open quite a few doors.
Just as a teaser, I intuitively assume that the diameter of the cylinder that curves into a hydrogen molecule, is equal to Amin of the proton orbital. The charge radius of a proton is 0.833 fm, whereas the Van der Waals radius of a hydrogen molecule is 120 pm, or 120 000 fm. Not delving too deep into the differences of the charge radius and the Van der Waals radius, we observe that the proton is way over ten of thousand times larger than half of an H2 molecule. Rather than being something to explain away, this is rather reassuring. This means that it is reasonable to assume that the hydrogen atom, which is neatly wound to a cord in a hydrogen molecule wraps around into a tight quasi-spherical surface when detached as a proton from the molecule.
But as for now, this is too vague an idea for me to say anything more concrete. If past experience serves me correct, there’s a seed of truth in this logic, but possibly a misunderstanding that first leads me to the wrong direction before I figure the whole truth.
As a conclusion, I’m finally beginning to make very exact predictions and statements, that can eventually be either verified or disproved. I don’t mind being proven wrong. I even like to prove my former self wrong as I gain more knowledge. The only way to make proper progress is to say something concrete that can then be shown to be correct or incorrect.
Comments