Today I'll continue with my visual series of illustrations of the principles of the Theory of Everything.
This time I'll show you a supramolecular knot of two hydrogen (H2) molecules:
This time, showing the green spheres for the orbitals (with only the average distance shown) is even more important than with the molecular bond. In the above video it is absolutely clear that in a supramolecular knot the average orbitals of two neighboring hydrogen molecules must overlap.
As far as I understand, these two hydrogen molecules aren’t bonded in any conventional way. That it, if one would press the molecule from either side, the molecules could be made to get even closer to each other. However, in almost all cases, the molecules are in thermal movement and attempting to move linearly and in the same direction as the knotted molecules next to them. But because the molecules are trapped into a supramolecular shell and these shells are in turn surrounded by other supramolecular shells, the movement becomes a helical orbital around a common center.
And at this point I must stress that this feature of the movement of molecules isn’t just theoretical. Rather, this is something that initially made me consider the Theory of Everything to begin with. I’ve shown this image before, where I place my self-made, lignin spheres (of very narrow size distribution) into a mixture of ethanol and water:
At very specific ratios of ethanol to water, something really odd happens to my lignin spheres. They swell from their ‘normal’ size of 400 nanometers to above 500 or even over 600 nanometers. For a long time I thought this effect was mostly something to do with my lignin spheres, but a bit before coming up with the Theory of Everything, I had an Eureka moment: what if the ethanol isn’t present as randomly distributed individual molecules, but rather as supramolecular shells of a very specific size. And not only that: these shells would be quantized. That is: rather than there being a wide distribution of sizes or that the size would linearly decrease as the ethanol content increased (because of the increase of surface to volume ratio), the shells would always be of a very discreet size. This would imply that at most ratios of ethanol to water, there would be two sizes of water-filled supramolecular shells of ethanol, so that the sum of these two sizes would have the right ratio of ethanol to water. And that only at very specific ratios of ethanol to water, there would be only one size of supramolecular shells of ethanol, which would allow for the lignin spheres to swell. To explain the swelling of the lignin spheres, I would require a whole new post, so I won’t go there today.
By the way, I’m still using this graph in the lab to help me work with lignin, especially when I use mixtures of ethanol and water.
But before just a few days back I had no way of convincing anyone why any molecules (be it ethanol or hydrogen) would form supramolecular shells. The first manuscript that suggested this I submitted for review in August 2022. Half a year after I realized the first idea how the hypothesis of the supramolecular shell could be explained by the Theory of Everything. And this was a year and a half ago. About a year ago I got the comments from the first reviewers, saying that they were not convinced, and that the quality of the manuscript was poor. And they weren’t exactly wrong, either. Back then, the theory was very rough, with plenty of mistakes and almost no mathematics dealing with the movement of the elementary particles of energy.
Even the manuscript that I got under review las October still had major flaws relating to my interpretation of the molecular bond and what I thought was the supramolecular bond. The manuscript is still under review, so it might still be accepted, even without modifications. However, I personally want to add the corrections, because I know it has actual errors relating to both the molecular bond and the supramolecular knot.
I’m currently revising the manuscript. Or should be but instead I’m writing these posts. However, this isn’t exactly procrastinating. Rather, this is a way of expressing the rough ideas I have in a coherent way. And first expressing these ideas as posts helps me translate the ideas to a more scientific speech. If I tried to express the ideas first with science jargon, before first expressing them in a more free-flowing form, I might not spot my own errors as easily. Even for me, speaking science is a second language. Or third: English is my second language and Finnish my first.
Comments