At the moment I’m struggling with an almost existential question: whether to go deeper into the nature of complex atoms or not.
I have at the same time the feeling that there is something missing from the puzzle that I don’t understand, but I also feel that if I just put my mind into it, I have a good chance of figuring it out.
The problem is that I really don’t know where to begin. None of the theoretical works on the properties of atoms assumes atoms to have structure, at least in the sense that the lay person would understand. So, what I attempt to do is considered folly. That is, as there is no structure to the atom, you cannot answer the question in any meaningful way.
If I am to suggest that there is a structure to atoms, I have to start from first principles. And not the Schrödinger equation, but from the elementary particles of energy. And when you have to rely on just mathematics and logic, there’s an awfully big danger of taking the wrong sorts of shortcuts and ending up at dead ends.
But what else can I do. So, please forgive me. What I’m about to write might be something that I’ll end up realizing is incorrect. On the other hand, if I won’t even begin to make a hypothesis, I’m definitely not getting closer to the truth.
Without further ado, let’s begin with the first assumption. The hydrogen atom are two entangled double helical strings coiled into a secondary helix with two turns, indented at the center and the bent by 360 degrees to close the helical loop. Like this:
If this is not yet obvious, there is no separate proton and electron in this structure. These to are formed only if the hydrogen atom is split into them.
And a deuterium atom is otherwise the same, but with four helical loops instead of two:
Just like in hydrogen, the neutron in deuterium is not separate from the rest of the structure.
And how about the more complex atoms? In my last post I hazarded a guess for helium. The guess is slightly different to the one made a year ago. I have some confidence in it, as it doesn’t require major mental gymnastics. The problem with this approach is that it seems to imply that all atoms are linear rods. With helium this isn’t a problem, but the higher you get in atomic mass, the more ridiculous this assumption seems to get.
Another problem with linear nuclear bonding is that it assumes that the helical loop inside the spherical volume would be accessible for bonding. Thus, while this concept seemed good in my last post, I might need to reconsider the idea from a year ago, because it doesn’t assume anything very magical for the bonding to take place.
If you’ve ever wondered how a scientific sausage is made, you can read this blog. Ideas don’t come up fully formed. You start out with simplifications, and everything looks fine. Then you try to add a bit of precision and then you realize that the assumption that applied with the simplification no longer applies. And you realize you’ve painted yourself in the corner. The only way to get out of the corner is to backtrack with the more accurate model and see where you veered off course. Then you attempt something new and see whether it makes sense.
However, at the moment if feel that there might not be a simple solution to the problem of nuclear bonding, so I might just need to go back to the theory of lignin and accept that my model on the nature of water vapor is a bit vague.
On the other hand, I might get an epiphany and return to nuclear bonding sooner rather than later.
Komentarze