Or does anyone know how to make a 3D polar plot of a wave in two scales?
In my previous posts I’ve noted that the theory of everything is quite boring. It appears to be ‘just’ the postulates of the kinetic theory of gases applied to Planck spheres moving at the speed of light. We know for certain that in practice we can describe the quantum state of an isolated quantum system with a wave function. Based on the Counterevidence Paper, this isolated quantum system is a supramolecular shell, or an entity of physical chemistry.
In wet chemistry, such a system is not quite isolated, as is seen as the release of protons in liquid water.
For simplicity, it is best to assume the simplest possible system. So, like many people before me, I’ll choose hydrogen. The traditional wave equation for hydrogen is
which I won’t bore you with. However, the equation does no give a deterministic value for the state. Rather, it gives a probability. A mathematical feature of using the wave equation is that there is an inherent uncertainty embedded within it. This is called the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. It states that the standard deviation of position σx and the standard deviation of momentum σp follow the equation:
where ħ is the reduced Planck constant, h/(2π). This uncertainty has been firmly believed to be a fundamental property of matter. However, I am convinced that this uncertainty is rather a feature of trying to describe a wave in two scale with a single equation.
To be precise, I am not the first person to propose a deterministic model for hydrogen. Rather, there is already an existing heated debate about this in the detection of a quantum state called a hydrino, by Randell L. Mills. He claims his experiments show an energy state below the lowest energy state of hydrogen, which he calls the "hydrino state". To explain his observations, he has created a deterministic quantum model, that “is not Lorentz invariant for any other phase velocity than the speed of light”. Or more specifically, as far as I understand it assumes speed of light in all cases. This paper critiques the theory, but also shows the conclusions one obtains when one assumes a deterministic wave function to applies to a single hydrogen molecule rather than a supramolecular shell of them.
Thus, while the hydrino theory appears to have caught onto something, the lack of understanding that quantum phenomena are supramolecular in nature is bound to reproduce the misunderstandings inherent in the conventional wave function.
Rather, the true wave (or waves) of Planck spheres moves on two scales: on the molecular scale and the supramolecular scale. The reason for this is rather trivial. What keeps the Planck spheres from moving in a straight line are the surrounding Planck spheres, both within the atomic orbital, but also within the neighboring loop of the supramolecular orbital. The Planck sphere in one loop at one point in time will eventually find itself in the neighboring loop. This is a rather convoluted way of saying that the supramolecular shell is a mode of self-containment. Much like a three-dimensional fishnet.
But what then is the mathematical representation of such a fishnet? The short answer is that I don’t know. The slightly longer answer is that it is bound to be a rather complicated polar plot in two scales. The primary scale has to be the distance of the Planck sphere from the center of the supramolecular cell. The average distance remains the same, but the location of the Planck sphere changes as a function of the supramolecular orbital, as well as the molecular orbital. As I noted in the Counterevidence Paper, I was able to find a geometrical solution to the simplest supramolecular orbital but couldn’t figure it out for any system with more than four loops. Also, my solution was in cartesian coordinates, so transferring the solution to polar coordinates requires a bit of work. So, it seems the equations might be doable, but I haven’t (nor has anyone else) formed these equations. And I’m not yet sure how many loops there are in any supramolecular shell (indirectly) observable as spectral lines. Thus it’s as of yet pointless to try to display anything very concrete.
However, the basic idea can be illustrated as a 2D polar plot, drawn with Wolfram Alpha. Writing “polar plot [1, 1+1/10*sin(20t)], (t, 0, 2 Pi)” to the command line, one obtains a circular sine wave with 20 peaks and troughs, with the average distance from the origin always being 1, and with the distance ranging from 0.9 to 1.1.
However, the orbital of the supramolecular shell is quite a bit more complex, even for hydrogen, as all the above has to be incorporate both the large-scale supramolecular shell structure with probably hundreds of loops, as well as the small-scale molecular orbital, that more closely resembles the simple supramolecular orbital (but only in the case of hydrogen).
Additionally, when the orbitals are fused, the original ‘path’ of the Planck spheres is altered. Just the fusing of two orbitals, as shown below, introduces a lot of complication. The numbers are guide to the eye how the Planck spheres orbit. It can be seen from the two colors of numbers that the fusing of the orbitals doesn’t just make a supramolecular orbital (green loops/numbers), but also an orbital between two protons (purple loops/numbers). If my chemist’s intuitions stands correct, the orbital between two protons is a bonding orbital, whereas the supramolecular orbital is the antibonding orbital. Just remember to take what I say with a pinch of salt. Just because my observation looks familiar, doesn’t automatically mean that the observation is truly of the same phenomenon. However, what else could it be?
So, as a conclusion, today we have begun to understand something of the nature of the chemical bond. Both molecular bonds and supramolecular bonds. However, as the hydrogen molecule is concerned, it greatly appears that the two are the same. Or more specifically it
signify the closed loop, as the supramolecular orbital has a non-infinite number of atoms/molecules, however large the number may be. The ⌘ sign is called a looped square, or Saint Hannes cross, and has a strong significance in the Nordic culture. And best of all, as far as I know, hasn’t been adopted to chemistry/physics yet, so is available. Whether ⌘ is a significant number that replicates for multiple molecules is yet unknown to me.
I won't make promises yet, but I might consider writing a post about atoms more complex than hydrogen. This, however, would require me to understand the nature of the electron shells. I know that there is something off in the current explanation, but cannot offer a better explanation than what is currently available.
Comments