There are six separate ways in which the structure of atoms and molecules, and their relation to space, prove that my version of string theory must be correct.
ELECTRIC CHARGES WITHIN ATOMS AND STRING THEORY
Space must be composed of the infinitesimal alternating negative and positive charges as I described in my version of string theory so that there is no more room for additional charges. This means that at the sub-atomic level, positive and negative charges certainly undergo a mutual attraction but even at extremely close quarters, they remain intact and do not neutralize each other.
Today, I would like to take that concept further in order to offer still more proof of my idea that space must be composed of a checkerboard of infinitesimal, alternating negative and positive charges.
The fact that the opposite electric charges within the atom do not neutralize each other offers proof that this must be the structure of space. But another fact, that electrons and protons do not merge together due to their mutual attraction, but remain separate, offers still more evidence of what the fine structure of space must be.
.
When we hold the opposite poles of two magnets near each other, they mutually attract in an effort to merge into a single object. Yet within the atom, electrons are attracted to the protons in the nucleus by opposite charge but instead of merging into one like the two magnets, the electrons go into orbit around the nucleus and the two do not merge. There is an exception to this, given the extreme pressure in the center of a star, an electron can be crunched into a proton to form a neutron.
We have already seen in my cosmology how matter results when we have any kind of concentration of the alternating electric charges that make up space. Most matter has equal amounts of negative and positive charge so that it's net charge is zero. But if the matter does have a net charge, it will distort the checkerboard pattern of the sorrounding space by pulling the infinitesimal particles of space that have an opposite charge toward it and pushing those particles with the same charge away from it.
This distorts the checkerboard pattern of charges in space creating what we perceive as a wave or magnetic lines of force, but it does not change the overall concentration of charge in space. The charges composing space merely adjust themselves to compensate for the net charge of the matter that is in their midst.
Put another way, when there is an electric charge in space, the space particles of opposite charge are pulled toward it while those of like charge are pushed away from it. But this distortion in the background space can only go so far because space particles of like charge are being brought closer to one another by the distortion and they will mutually repel one another. The process continues until an equilibrium between these two forces is reached.
A negative charge concentration in space cannot be completely sorrounded by the positive charges composing the structure of space that it attracts because these would repel one another. Once again, we experience this distortion in the structure of space as an electromagnetic wave or magnetic lines of force.
This leads us to an answer as to why the negative and positive charges that are in extremely close proximity to one another within every atom only move together up to a point. They are mutually attracted but the protons and electrons ordinarily stop just short of merging together. The electrons go into orbit around the nucleus instead at the point where an equilibrium is reached between the two opposing forces.
The reason for this proves, once again that space must be composed of the infinitesimal, alternating electric charges that I described in this theory.
Imagine a proton and electron in space. The electron moves toward the proton because their opposite electrical charges undergo a mutual attraction. But as they move closer together, something happens. The electron distorts the charged checkerboard structure of space by pulling positive charges toward itself and at the same time pushing negative charges away.
This is actually why the proton is attracted to the electron, even though the two are not in physical contact. The proton is being pulled by the negatively-charged particles of space that are being pushed away from the electron. In the same way, the electron is being attracted not by the proton, because the two are not in physical contact, but by the positively charged particles of space being pushed away from the proton.
But while this mutual attraction is going on, a mutual repulsion is building in space itself among the negative and positive charges that are now being pushed together with particles of the same charge. At some point, this mutual repulsion becomes equal with the mutual attraction between the proton and electron.
.
When that happens, the proton and the electron maintain their attraction but do not move any closer together. The mutual attraction of the two and the mutual repulsion of the particles of space remain in balance and the electron orbits the proton instead of moving any closer to it.
Thus, it must be that space is composed of infinitesimal negative and positive electrical charges, as I have described. How else can we explain both why electric charges in very close proximity do not neutralize each other or why electrons and protons do not usually merge together but maintain a certain distance between themselves?
Notice that there is an extremely short length, known as Planck's Length, which shows up in all manner of physics formulae. What could this Planck's Length possibly be except the infinitesimal distance between the electric charges in ordinary space?
.
These particles of space, like matter which is only a form of space, always seek a condition of equilibrium and the lowest available energy state. We do not notice this in our everyday world because the vast majority of an atom is empty space and the distance to which opposite charges can approach is far smaller than the width of an atom.
QUARKS, ELECTRONS AND, STRING THEORY
I would like to point out an observation that I have made about quarks and electrons and how it fits into my cosmological theory.
The so-called quarks are fundamental particles of which atomic nuclei are composed. The idea of quarks was proposed in 1964 independently by Murray Gell-Mann and George Zweig. The most important quarks are the up and down quarks. An up quark has a charge of +2/3, while a down quark has a charge of -1/3.
A proton consists of two up quarks and one down quark, giving it an overall charge of +1. A neutron is similar to a proton in structure except that it consists of two down quarks and one up quark, giving it an overall charge of zero. There are several other quarks, but if these all vanished tommorrow, only particle physicists would even notice.
The Quark Model portrays the electrons that orbit the nuclei of atoms as point particles called leptons. Electrons are infinitesimal particles that are not composed of quarks and are outside of the Quark Model. You can read further about quarks, if you wish by going to http://www.wikipedia.org/ and looking up "quark" or "standard model".
Now, let's consider the fusion that takes place inside the sun. The tremendous pressure at the sun's core fuses four hydrogen atoms into one helium atom. The reason that the sun shines is that there is binding energy from atomic nuclei left over after this fusion process occurs and this leftover energy is released as heat.
Since a hydrogen atom is simply one electron revolving around one proton, that means that four protons and four electrons crunched together create the two protons, two neutrons and, two electrons that compose a helium atom. But this can only mean that a proton and an electron can be crunched together to create a neutron. The two neutrons in the helium atom must have been created by two of the four hydrogen protons being combined with two of the hydrogen electrons. There is no other possibility.
So, it is clear that while protons and electrons are mutually attracted by their opposite charge, they are held apart from combining under normal circumstances, but that can be overcome with enough pressure so that the two can combine to form a neutron.
This must mean that if a neutron is composed of two down quarks and one up quark, while a proton is composed of two ups and one down, an electron must be able to fit into the Quark Model and the addition of an electron must be able to change an up quark to a down quark. Electrons must be considered as having the ability to fit into the Quark Model. Indeed the charge of an electron is -1, while the difference in electric charge between an up and down quark is also -1.
By the way, neutrons are unstable unless they are included in an atomic nuclei. If a neutron is on it's own, it will decay back into a proton and an electron in an average of about 15 minutes. This is very fortunate for us, since if the fusion process going on in stars produced large numbers of neutrons that were free and did not decay, matter as we know it would have great difficulty existing, since it depends on the attraction of opposite charges to hold the atoms together and neutrons are chargeless.
Electrons therefore fit right in with quarks and can change one type of quark into another, and thus change a proton into a neutron. A neutron is indeed known to be slightly more massive than a proton, obviously due to the added electron. But this arrangement is not entirely stable and the neutron can only exist permanently if it is locked into an atomic nucleus. The protons hold the neutrons together even as the neutrons act as the "glue" that holds the like-charged protons together in the nucleus.
This must mean that the electron is actually composed of the same type of "stuff" as the quarks, even if it is not incorporated into the Quark Model. If the electron were a particle that is completely alien to quarks, it would not be able to fit in and to change one quark into another.
My version of string theory stipulates that matter began with a two-dimensional sheet of "orphan" space that was not incorporated into the multi-dimensional background space. The sheet of space was not exactly symmetrical and it folded by it's own gravity. As it did, one of it's two dimensional bonds disintegrated in the matter-antimatter explosion that resulted when the negative side of the sheet came in contact with the positive side. This explosion is what we perceive as the Big Bang that began the universe. (In my cosmology, the Big Bang was the beginning only of matter and not of space, which already existed).
But when one of the two dimensional bonds of the sheet disintegrated, which one it was varied from place to place on the sheet. The result, either way, is the one-dimensional strings of which matter is composed and which we perceive as particles, such as electrons. These electrons are straight-line strings from the negative side of the sheet. Positrons are the antimatter equivalent of electrons and are straight-line strings from the positive side of the sheet.
Quarks, however, are wide swaths of lines of charges from the center of the sheet. This is why up or down quarks do not have a complete charge, only +2/3 or -1/3. It also explains why quarks are so much more massive than electrons.
But this does mean that a quark and an electron are both composed of basically the same kind of "stuff" because they were cut from the shame original sheet of space that disintegrated to form matter. However, quarks and electrons are different "cuts" of the sheet and so do have to be forced together and then must be held in place because the arrangement is not entirely stable. Up and down quarks fit together so readily because they are two complimentary cuts of the original sheet and are like the middle part of the sheet coming back together again.
What better way is there to explain the relationship between electrons and quarks?
ELECTRIC NEUTRALIZATION AND STRING THEORY
In this theory, I described how space consists of alternating negative and positive electric charges that balance out overall so that space appears to have a zero electric charge.
We know that the reason for electrical sparks, such as lightning, is to equalize concentrations of opposite charges, known as a potential difference, that are in close proximity to one another. Likewise, all electric currents are due to such equalizations with electrons rushing from negative to positive. Negative is so-named because it loses electrons when the current flows while the positive terminal gains the electrons.
Now, let's consider a question. If opposite electric charges in close enough proximity to one another will neutralize by means such as an electric current or spark, then what about the electric charges within atoms?
.
All atoms of matter consist of negatively-charged electrons around a positively-charged nucleus. An atom of antimatter is similar except the charges are reversed. Yet, it seems that atoms can exist in such a state indefinitely without any neutralization whatsoever between electrons and protons.
If the electrical charges within atoms did neutralize one another like the opposite charges in the ground and a cloud in an electrical storm, atoms as we know them could not exist. But how can this be so? Most atoms have an overall neutral electric charge but that is only because the negative and positive charges within them balance out, the charges themselves always remain intact.
The only conclusion that we can come to is that while electrons can readily move from atom to atom to neutralize a potential difference, space itself cannot act as a medium for the transfer of electric charge. If it could, atoms would not exist since electrons and protons within atoms are in very close proximity with nothing but space between them.
Protons and electrons must affect the intervening space or they would not mutually attract. But the charges cannot actually cross that space or else they would neutralize each other. The only possible way that I can think of to rationally explain this is that space itself must consist of infinitesimal, alternating negative and positive electric charges as I pointed out in my theory.
These charges comprising space can be concentrated, which we perceive as matter, or their checkerboard pattern can be distorted, which we perceive as electromagnetic waves, but since there is no room in space for the introduction of additional electric charges to cross space, the opposite charges within the atom do not neutralize each other.
Let's stop and ponder why space can supposedly act as a medium for electromagnetic waves, such as light, but cannot act as a medium for the transfer of electric charge itself. It does not seem to make any sense but, in fact, can be easily explained by my model of space as a multi-dimensional checkerboard of infinitesimal alternating electric charges.
.
Matter, or the presence of a concentration of charges, can create a disturbance in this pattern by the attractive and repulsive effect it's charges have on the infinitesimal charges comprising space, creating a wave, but if electric charge itself could cross space, protons and electrons would mutually neutralize.
Space is already crowded full of electric charges, this is what space is. These charges are loose enough to have their pattern distorted but it is not possible for an actual electric charge to traverse space. Charges can only cross matter, and not space, because electrons jump from one atoms to the next forming an electric spark or current.
ELECTRON REPULSION AND STRING THEORY
In my version of string theory that I have titled "The Theory of Stationary Space", sub-atomic particles such as electrons are not actually particles but strings that originated from the dissolution in one dimension of a two-dimensional sheet of space that formed by electric charge reproduction in the same way as the multi-dimensional background space in which it existed for a while.
I consider the simple phenomenon known as electron repulsion as strong evidence of the plausibility of this model of the underlying structure of the universe. Electron repulsion occurs whenever one object rests against or atop another object. The vast majority of an atom is empty space and the only reason that the two objects do not merge into each other like two clouds is electron repulsion. The negatively-charged electrons in orbit around the nuclei in the outer atoms of each objects repels the electrons in the outer atoms of the other object because like charges repel just as opposite charges attract.
Now, I have something to think about for anyone who may still have any doubts about this theory. There are some things in science that appear to be well-established facts but nevertheless strain credibility. Electron repulsion is definitely one of these facts.
Let's take a quick look at just how empty an atom really is. Suppose we wanted to make an accurate scale model of a carbon atom, which has six electrons in orbit around the nucleus? First, we might select a large sports stadium to represent the atom. To build the model of the carbon atom, we would need a sphere about the size of a strawberry to represent the nucleus and six pin heads to represent the electrons. We would place the nucleus in the middle of the playing field and the electrons in orbits at varying distances from the central nucleus, with the two most distant pin head electrons being on the outer walls of the stadium.
As you can easily picture, an atom is an extremely empty place. We think of atoms as solid spheres and they do seem to be this way from our scale because the wavelengths of light that we see are so much longer than the diameter of atoms. But on the scale of the atoms themselves, nothing could be further from the truth. The only part of the atom that is really solid is the nucleus in the center, the electron orbitals around it are much more like a cloud than any kind of solid sphere. The nucleus takes up only about a trillionth of the space in the atom and contains almost all of it's mass.
So then how does electron repulsion take place so that it prevents a book resting on a table from merging into the table? The electrons in the opposite atoms that supposedly repel each other and stop any such merger are actually so far apart at any given time that this is surely impossible.
Furthermore when two atoms are brought close together, each positively-charged nucleus will exert an attractive force on the electrons in the other atom, thus making the merger even more likely, because the outer electrons in each atom will be closer to the opposite nucleus than the like-charged nuclei will be to each other. This can only mean that the force of attraction prompting a merger between two atoms pressed against each other by gravity or any other force must be stronger than the repulsive force between the oppositely charged electrons and nuclei in the two atoms.
This idea of electron repulsion keeping atoms apart seems even more nonsensical if we consider hydrogen atoms. Hydrogen is the lightest element and by far the most common atom in the universe. About 75% of all atoms are hydrogen.
The heavier an element is, with more electrons, the greater the odds that two outer electrons in opposite atoms will be close enough to repel each other and prevent two objects from merging into one. But what about hydrogen, with only one electron? If we had a number of hydrogen atoms close together, odds are that at any given time the odds are 50% that in two such atoms close together, their sole electrons will be on completely opposite sides of their respective nuclei so that electron repulsion would be non-existent. So, the proton of each hydrogen atom should exert an attractive force on an electron in orbit around another proton, unfettered by it's electron exerting any repulsive force against it.
This means that with hydrogen atoms, electron repulsion could be effective only a fraction of the time because the opposing electrons would be nowhere near each other while in their orbits around their protons. But yet, hydrogen atoms do not spontaneously merge by sharing electrons as in covalent chemical bonds. In fact, it requires the extreme pressure at the center of stars to fuse hydrogen atoms together into heavier elements.
However, my version of string theory explains that electrons are not particles but actually strings. We only perceive them as particles because our consciousness moves along the bundle of strings composing our bodies and brains at what we perceive as the speed of light. This is what we perceive as time and we can only see at right angles to the dimension of space that we thus preceive as time. This right angle view is what we refer to as the present at any given moment and this model, as I described in the theory, provides neat and simple explanations of what time is, why the speed of light is what it is and, the why of the physical laws described by both Einstein and earlier by Newton.
Electron repulsion, which seems impossible if electrons are indeed particles, makes much more sense if electrons are actually strings. For electron repulsion to take place between like-charged electron strings, the strings would not have to be near each other always but only periodically.
Consider the support of telephone and electrical wire by telephone poles. It is not necessary for there to be continuous support of the wires but only periodic support. If a person walked along a line of telephone poles but could only see at right angles and not ahead or behind, it might seem that there was a mysterious ground-wire repulsion that was suspending the wire in the air above the ground.
As you can see, the electron repulsion that prevents objects from merging into each other can take place only if electrons are actually strings, rather than particles, as I have described in The Theory Of Stationary Space. If electrons are strings then the particles in the nucleus must be composed of strings also. If atoms are composed of strings but we see them as particles, what we perceive as time must actually be space and since our bodies must be composed of strings, it can only be our consciousness that it moving along the strings that compose our bodies and brains.
Since nothing ever appears to us to be moving faster than the speed of light, we can safely presume that this is actually the speed at which our consciousness is moving along the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains and that these strings are aligned in the spatial dimension that we preceive as time. Sure enough, we can find no physical reason at all why the speed of light is what it is.
I consider the simple phenomenon known as electron repulsion as strong evidence of the plausibility of this model of the underlying structure of the universe. Electron repulsion occurs whenever one object rests against or atop another object. The vast majority of an atom is empty space and the only reason that the two objects do not merge into each other like two clouds is electron repulsion. The negatively-charged electrons in orbit around the nuclei in the outer atoms of each objects repels the electrons in the outer atoms of the other object because like charges repel just as opposite charges attract.
Now, I have something to think about for anyone who may still have any doubts about this theory. There are some things in science that appear to be well-established facts but nevertheless strain credibility. Electron repulsion is definitely one of these facts.
Let's take a quick look at just how empty an atom really is. Suppose we wanted to make an accurate scale model of a carbon atom, which has six electrons in orbit around the nucleus? First, we might select a large sports stadium to represent the atom. To build the model of the carbon atom, we would need a sphere about the size of a strawberry to represent the nucleus and six pin heads to represent the electrons. We would place the nucleus in the middle of the playing field and the electrons in orbits at varying distances from the central nucleus, with the two most distant pin head electrons being on the outer walls of the stadium.
As you can easily picture, an atom is an extremely empty place. We think of atoms as solid spheres and they do seem to be this way from our scale because the wavelengths of light that we see are so much longer than the diameter of atoms. But on the scale of the atoms themselves, nothing could be further from the truth. The only part of the atom that is really solid is the nucleus in the center, the electron orbitals around it are much more like a cloud than any kind of solid sphere. The nucleus takes up only about a trillionth of the space in the atom and contains almost all of it's mass.
So then how does electron repulsion take place so that it prevents a book resting on a table from merging into the table? The electrons in the opposite atoms that supposedly repel each other and stop any such merger are actually so far apart at any given time that this is surely impossible.
Furthermore when two atoms are brought close together, each positively-charged nucleus will exert an attractive force on the electrons in the other atom, thus making the merger even more likely, because the outer electrons in each atom will be closer to the opposite nucleus than the like-charged nuclei will be to each other. This can only mean that the force of attraction prompting a merger between two atoms pressed against each other by gravity or any other force must be stronger than the repulsive force between the oppositely charged electrons and nuclei in the two atoms.
This idea of electron repulsion keeping atoms apart seems even more nonsensical if we consider hydrogen atoms. Hydrogen is the lightest element and by far the most common atom in the universe. About 75% of all atoms are hydrogen.
The heavier an element is, with more electrons, the greater the odds that two outer electrons in opposite atoms will be close enough to repel each other and prevent two objects from merging into one. But what about hydrogen, with only one electron? If we had a number of hydrogen atoms close together, odds are that at any given time the odds are 50% that in two such atoms close together, their sole electrons will be on completely opposite sides of their respective nuclei so that electron repulsion would be non-existent. So, the proton of each hydrogen atom should exert an attractive force on an electron in orbit around another proton, unfettered by it's electron exerting any repulsive force against it.
This means that with hydrogen atoms, electron repulsion could be effective only a fraction of the time because the opposing electrons would be nowhere near each other while in their orbits around their protons. But yet, hydrogen atoms do not spontaneously merge by sharing electrons as in covalent chemical bonds. In fact, it requires the extreme pressure at the center of stars to fuse hydrogen atoms together into heavier elements.
However, my version of string theory explains that electrons are not particles but actually strings. We only perceive them as particles because our consciousness moves along the bundle of strings composing our bodies and brains at what we perceive as the speed of light. This is what we perceive as time and we can only see at right angles to the dimension of space that we thus preceive as time. This right angle view is what we refer to as the present at any given moment and this model, as I described in the theory, provides neat and simple explanations of what time is, why the speed of light is what it is and, the why of the physical laws described by both Einstein and earlier by Newton.
Electron repulsion, which seems impossible if electrons are indeed particles, makes much more sense if electrons are actually strings. For electron repulsion to take place between like-charged electron strings, the strings would not have to be near each other always but only periodically.
Consider the support of telephone and electrical wire by telephone poles. It is not necessary for there to be continuous support of the wires but only periodic support. If a person walked along a line of telephone poles but could only see at right angles and not ahead or behind, it might seem that there was a mysterious ground-wire repulsion that was suspending the wire in the air above the ground.
As you can see, the electron repulsion that prevents objects from merging into each other can take place only if electrons are actually strings, rather than particles, as I have described in The Theory Of Stationary Space. If electrons are strings then the particles in the nucleus must be composed of strings also. If atoms are composed of strings but we see them as particles, what we perceive as time must actually be space and since our bodies must be composed of strings, it can only be our consciousness that it moving along the strings that compose our bodies and brains.
Since nothing ever appears to us to be moving faster than the speed of light, we can safely presume that this is actually the speed at which our consciousness is moving along the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains and that these strings are aligned in the spatial dimension that we preceive as time. Sure enough, we can find no physical reason at all why the speed of light is what it is.
THE HYDROGEN ATOM AND THE NATURE OF SPACE
It has been established that the space of which the universe is composed consists of a kind of fabric. Space is "something" rather than "nothing", as we might expect "empty space" to be.
Einstein showed that a satellite in orbit around the earth will not turn out exactly where calculations indicate it should be. It will be displaced by a slight amount by a phenomenon known as "Frame Dragging" or "The Lense Thirring Effect". This is because the earth "wraps" space around it as it rotates, although this is only done to a slight extent.
If you wish, you can look up Frame Dragging on http://www.wikipedia.org/ for more detail.
This inevitable discrepancy in the satellite's orbit proves that empty space is not empty, that it consists of a fabric that is affected, however slightly, by the rotation of the earth. This could not be the case if space were just an empty vacuum.
I would like to point out today something that I think is an even easier way to demonstrate that space must consist of a fabric and is not "nothing".
Consider the simplest of all atoms, the hydrogen atom. One electron revolving around one proton, held together by their mutual attraction of opposite electric charge. The existence of hydrogen atoms demonstrates, more simply than anything else, that space must consist of a fabric and cannot be nothing.
We know for certain that inside the atom, gravity is so insignificant as to not even be a factor at all. If gravity is not a factor, then why does the electron orbit the proton? Obviously, the mutual attraction of opposite electric charges are the reason.
But the charge on an electron is equal to that on a proton. We know that a proton is much more massive than an electron, actually 1,836 times as massive, but if gravity is not even a remote factor and the charges on the electron and proton are equal, then why don't the electron and proton go into a mutual orbit? Without one orbiting the other?
Now we know that the electron does, in fact, orbit the proton. If this were not the case, and it was a mutual orbit, each proton in a quantity of hydrogen would come in close contact with the electrons in mutual orbit with other protons and it would all merge together into one mass, rather than existing as individual atoms. Yet, we know that hydrogen does exist as individual atoms.
The electromagnetic force, which governs the mutual attraction of electron and proton is far, far stronger than gravity. Far more than 1,836 times as strong. So how can we explain why the electron does orbit the proton and the two do not go into a mutual orbit?
The only relevant factor remaining is the space between the electron and proton in the hydrogen atom. If space is a fabric of some kind then it should hold matter in place until a force is exerted to move the matter to a different location in space.
Space itself is sensitive to the mass of matter within it, and not just it's electric charge. If space were "nothing", just a vacuum, then there would be no reason why the electron and proton would not go into a mutual orbit, with gravity being so utterly insignificant. But if space were, in fact, a fabric of some type, then it would tend to hold matter in it's present position. The more mass a piece of matter had, the more "hold" space would have on it.
Thus, we can conclude that it is the fabric nature of space which causes the electron in a hydrogen atom to orbit the proton composing the nucleus of the atom. It requires less force for the electron to move in space than the proton simply because it's mass is only 1/1,836 the mass of the proton.
The revolution of the electron around the proton forms a lower-energy state than a mutual orbit and so that is what occurs and it has nothing to do with gravity. An electron is so infinitesimal that it is not really affected by any gravity in the universe.
MOLECULAR BONDS AND STRING THEORY
Atoms adhere to one another to form molecules by either ionic or covalent bonding. An ionic bond between atoms is simple, one atom loses an outer electron to another so that one has a positive charge and the other now has a negative charge and this binds them together, since opposite electric charges attract.
Covalent bonds are a little bit more complex. This is where two or more atoms are bound together by the sharing of an electron. I find that the existence of this type of bond serves as confirmation of my Theory Of Stationary Space, as described in detail on this blog.
Covalent bonding of atoms would not occur if, as classical physics supposes, electrons were particles, rather than strings. How could a shared electron pair possibly hold two or more atoms together if the electrons were particles? An electron can only be a part of one atom at any given moment and that would give each atom an opportunity to move apart from the others.
But if electrons were actually strings, as described in my theory, they would function as strings tying a bundle together. We perceive electrons, and all such particles, as particles only because we can only see at right angles to our present position in the four dimensions of space that we inhabit. This causes us to perceive three of those dimensions as space and the other as time and a one-dimensional string as a point particle.
Metals consists of crystals, which share electrons among the atoms in the crystal. This is why they conduct electricity, because electrons are free to move from one atom to the next. Electricity is simply a flow of electrons. But if each atom in a metallic crystal gives up an electron to be shared communally, the atoms would then become positive ions and thus should mutually repel one another. But they don't.
I find this to be explainable only by electrons as strings, rather than particles, tying the atoms in the crystal together. This would not be possible if electrons were, in fact, particles. A string can be in many places at once, all along it's length. But we perceive such strings as particles, which can be in only one place at once, and so we are faced with mysteries such as this.
THE BIG BANG AND THE SCALE OF ATOMS
It is truly amazing just how empty atoms really are. The usual model of the internal distances within an atom is to liken it to a modern sports stadium. If the entire atom was the size of the stadium, the nucleus would be a strawberry (or a small stone) in the middle of the playing field, and the electrons would be the size of pinheads moving around the nucleus in orbitals throughout the stadium. It does not matter if we are representing a larger or a smaller atom because any would be approximately the same in terms of proportion.
My cosmology theory, also known as "The Theory Of Stationary Space", explains so much of what is otherwise very difficult to explain about the nature of the universe, as we see it, by explaining matter as strings rather than particles and what we perceive as time as actually another dimension of space along which our consciousness proceeds at what we perceive as the speed of light.
This observation today does not involve the outer dimensions and so can be understood in terms of ordinary physics.
Imagine two astronauts (cosmonauts in Russia or taikonauts in China) standing on an asteroid far out in space. It is a minor asteroid which has essentially no gravity. The two astronauts each throws a rock out into space in the same direction. There is a gravitational attraction between the two rocks so that they go into a mutual orbit around each other. But the nature of this orbit must reflect not only the force of their gravitational attraction, but also the force of the momentum with which they were thrust outward into space. These two forces will form a vector, as with any intersecting forces in physics, and this vector will be manifested in the mutual orbit.
The deciding factor is the proportion between the two forces. The stronger is the outward momentum into space of the two rocks, relative to their mutual gravitational attraction, the longer the period of their mutual orbit. Each rock must divert from it's course set by the outward momentum to go into orbit around the other.
If the two forces are equal, this diversion will be a 45 degree angle. It will be more than 45 degrees if the gravitational attraction drawing the two rocks into a mutual orbit is greater then their outward momentum into space, and it will be less than 45 degrees if the gravitational attraction between the two rocks is less than their outward momentum into space. If the mutual gravitational attraction between the two rocks was greater than their outward momentum into space so that they collided and joined together, the resulting mass would continue to manifest the outward momentum into space as rotation.
(Note-if this sounds somewhat familiar it is because of it's similarity to the posting "The Earth, The Moon And. The Sun" on the physics and astronomy blog, www.markmeekphysics.blogspot.com . The moon seems to us to orbit around the earth every 29 days. Actually, both are in orbit around the sun. The moon must primarily orbit the sun, rather than the earth, simply because the sun's gravitational force on the moon is more than twice that of the earth. But the gravity between the earth and moon has to be manifested also and this is accomplished by the two alternating positions as they both orbit the sun, according to their relative mass, every 29 days. There is another reason to be thankful for the sun, other than that it keeps us warm, the gravitational attraction that it has for both keeps the earth and moon primarily in orbit around itself so that the two are not drawn together by their gravitational attraction. This is similar to how the gravity of Jupiter prevents the asteroids from coalescing into a planet. If the moon collided with the earth, you would not be reading this now).
Given this scenario, it should not matter if the attractive force between the two rocks was gravitational or was from opposite electric charge attraction. Either way, the mutual orbit of the two rocks is a synthesis of the mutual attraction and the outward momentum into space. Neither would it matter if the momentum of the two rocks thrown out into space was from another source, such as the Big Bang which began the universe as we know it, the same principles of vectors of momentum would apply.
Let's replace the two rocks thrown outward from the asteroid with the negative and positive electric charges thrown out into space by the Big Bang. There is the attraction between opposite charges, as well as repulsion by like charges, and the momentum outward from the Big Bang. The charges tend to come together to form "zero units", where the charges balance out to zero, that we refer to as atoms.
Within atoms, the opposite electric charges form orbits in the same way that the two rocks went into a mutual orbit after being thrown out into space in the same direction from the asteroid. In matter, negatively-charged electrons form orbitals around the positively-charged nucleus and in antimatter, positively-charged positrons form orbitals around the negatively-charged nucleus. But the momentum outward from the Big Bang must also be manifested in the orbitals, just as in the simple example of the mutual orbit of the two rocks. The orbit of each electron is a vector of the opposite charge attraction and the momentum outward from the Big Bang.
The force of the Big Bang must be a factor in the size scale of atoms. Just as with the two rocks, electrons would have to make sharper turns from their trajectory of outward momentum to go into a tighter orbit around the nucleus. The sharpness of the turn that can be brought about by the force of opposite electric charge attraction is a vector of the force of that attraction relative to the force of outward momentum from the Big Bang.
If the outward momentum of the Big Bang was weaker, atoms would be smaller than they are and there would be more empty space relative to matter but matter would be more dense. If the attraction between opposite electric charges was weaker then atoms would still exist, but would be larger and less dense.
This does not explain the total density of matter in space because that is the result, according to my theory, of a two-dimensional "sheet" of space having it's bonds disintegrate in one of the two dimensions to initiate the Big Bang which took place in four dimensions of space. This means that the density of matter in space is two dimensions within four dimensions. This does not mean that there cannot be more than four dimensions but that the matter of which we are composed of was thrown out across space in four dimensions.
No comments:
Post a Comment