In my last post I realized that the only way to explain the astronomical number of twists in the hydrogen molecule is that the double-helical arcs of two sizes have opposite twists. At the end of the post, I concluded that the concept raises a lot of interesting questions.
After publishing the post, I let my mind wander and seek interesting paths. I was thinking about the relationship between twist and charge and realized I hadn’t put two and two together yet. If the ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ twists don’t exactly add up, the difference in the twists must be correlated with charge. But if a hydrogen molecule has zero charge, where does is this inherent charge negated?
One possibility is that a hydrogen molecule isn’t really symmetrical. Rather, the two sides of the molecule would be mirror images of each other. This seems like a radical idea, but so logical that it’s at least worth considering. In the below image, positive twist is marked with T+ and blue arrows and negative twist is marked with T- and red arrows.
The problem with this concept is that at least to me it appears that the other side having an opposite twist makes it look like an anti-hydrogen. While I’m still quite skeptical about this idea, it might still be possible. You see, the removal of electrons from hydrogen is quite difficult. This electron-free hydrogen plasma is usually generated at a temperature of over 5000 K, in low pressure and in the presence of an electric field. So, it’s feasible that these extreme conditions could flip the ‘antihydrogen end’ of the hydrogen molecule into a regular proton and an electron. In the end, the mass of antihydrogen is the same as that of regular hydrogen.
I’m not at all saying that this is the case. What I’m more trying to convey is that when posed with a new dilemma, I have to keep by brain open to all kinds of ideas, but then follow them up with analysis.
At the moment I’m faced with an annoying problem. In principle I’m able to introduce a twist into a circular arc and I can draw the orbital of the hydrogen molecule, but I’m unable to combine both into a meaningful whole. The reason is quite simple: the blender trick I use for the twisting of the orbital end me having the twist begin at a specific angle, which lead me to produce twisted arcs with a beginning angle I’m not able to control that well. As I write this, I realize that if the illustration uses a twisted rod, I can rotate it lengthwise just the amount that I wish before bending, so that I will get just the right beginning angle. Now the problem is that I’m not yet sure what the beginning angle should be.
Once I’ve created the right number of twisted arcs, I should then arrange them just the right way. If I knew what the angles were, this wouldn’t be as much of a problem. However, trying to guess the angles beforehand seems to be something that I’m no good at. At the moment I’m tempted to pause here and try to publish the theory as it is. Or more specifically, I’m tempted to try to write what I already know into revision of the counterevidence paper and accept that the proof is incomplete.
All of this is tricky. As Carl Sagan (among others) said: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Now, I have a mathematical relationship between the absorption of light by hydrogen that points to photons being present as rings of light. Extraordinary, but the mathematics adds up. I also have a way of expressing both the electron and the proton as spheres of a closed loop of elementary particles. And I also have a way of expressing the hydrogen molecule as a twisted double-helical string, with alternating direction of twists from one circular arc to the next. Next, I have a way of adding these hydrogen molecules into a supramolecular shell (a Van der Waals molecule), also as a closed loop of interconnected molecules. And finally, I have experimental evidence of the release of protons from the supramolecular shell in a way that is mathematically consistent.
But I couldn’t yet say that the theory is seamless. If I was asked: “what if you are wrong?”, I would answer: “then I wouldn’t be right”. I’ve still made shortcuts that can be questioned. I could be wrong, even badly so, in some aspects of the theory. But as the next best alternative theory requires ten dimensions, I wouldn’t say my theory is that extraordinary. On the contrary, I’d say the lack of ten dimensions is the most compelling evidence that my theory is correct.
The next thing I’ll do is to see whether I’ll be able to rewrite the counterevidence paper with just this data. I mean all the data shown on my blog relating to the properties of electrons, protons and hydrogen molecules. Not the posts on the structure of deuterium or heavier atoms, or on other phenomena. As I write, I’ll probably find better mathematical descriptions for the things that are left a bit vague in these posts.
The comical thing is that I have to change the equation depicting the simplest supramolecular shell and call it what it is: the orbital of the hydrogen molecule. I was about to say that the old model for the supramolecular shell is wrong, and the electron equation applied there as well. However, considering how different the mechanism of formation for the electron/proton is compared to the supramolecular shell, I think my original idea was right in the end. The reason why the electron is a standing spherical wave is that the elementary particles are in constant motion at the speed of light. However, when it comes to supramolecular shells, the speed of movement of the molecules is at a snail’s pace, even in boiling water. This can already be seen in the proton/hydrogen transition. The electron is always a sphere (when it exists independently), as is the proton. Once proton receives an electron, it folds into hydrogen, which is already folding into circular arcs. At sizes above this, the primary phenomenon is folding. The folded double-sphere of a supramolecular shell can of course behave like a sphere, but it is no longer ‘fuzzy’. That is, not in the same sense as the electron and the proton are. The rotation of the double sphere makes it a bit ‘fuzzy’, but not at all on a similar level to the much smaller particles.
I might be posting less, if my writing of the revision of the Counterevidence paper starts to pick up pace. In this case I might be posting updates to the article, with drafts of the paper linked.
コメント