Chemistry And Cosmology

I was looking at a periodic table of the elements, trying to find something new to write about chemistry for readers having a particular interest in that subject. Suddenly, something really jumped out at me that I had not thought of before. It was not so much about chemistry as about the underlying cosmology of the universe, but it also explained all that happens in chemistry as we know it.

Remember that the way to discovery often lies not so much in answering questions that no one has answered, but in asking questions that no one has asked. Here is one such question: Why is it that all atoms of the chemical elements have eight or fewer electrons in the outermost electron shell of the atom? No matter how large the atom is, and how many electrons it has altogether, there are always eight or fewer in the outer most shell. Within stars, smaller atoms are crunched together into larger ones and if the atom already has eight electrons in the outermost shell then it will start a new shell. The only exception is the element palladium.

Before going further, let's do a quick review of the electron configuration of atoms. An atom of a given element consists of a nucleus, composed of protons and neutrons. Protons are positively-charged and the atomic number of the element, by which elements are defined, it simply the number of protons in the nucleus. If we changed the number of protons, the element would no longer be the same element. Atoms can have up to several different numbers of neutrons in the nucleus, atoms of the same element but with differing numbers of neutrons are known as isotopes.

Electrons are also a part of the atom. They exist not within the nucleus but orbit the nucleus somewhat like planets in orbit around the sun. Ordinary atoms have the same number of electrons as protons, which have a negative charge equal and opposite to the proton's positive charge. This means that the net charge of the atom is zero. If there are more or fewer electrons than protons, so the atom is electrically charged, it is known as an ion.

The orbits of electrons are somewhat more complex than the orbits of planets, simply because electrons mutually repel one another and so must space themselves in orbit around the nucleus accordingly. Remember that like charges attract while opposite charges repel.

Electrons orbit the nucleus in shells, somewhat like the stories of a building. The larger the atom, the more electrons it will have as well as more electron shells. There are naturally fewer electrons in the inner shells because there is less space. The arrangement of the electrons in the atom's orbital shells is known as the electron configuration. Electron shells show a bias to being either full, empty or half full, with the exception of the outermost shell.

Here is a very good periodic table, it is an entire chemistry database. Hold the pointer over one of the elements and it will give you the electron configuration, from the nucleus outward, in the upper left. Click on an element and it will provide detailed information about it: www.ptable.com .

Ordinary chemistry does not concern the nucleus but only the interactions of the eight or fewer electrons in the outermost shell with those of other atoms. All of chemistry revolves around these eight or fewer outermost electrons. If an atom has three or fewer electrons in the outer shell, it loses those during a chemical reaction which forms a molecule, which is a group of atoms bound together to form a compound. If an atom has six or seven electrons in the outermost shell, it gains one or two during the reaction.

The migration of electrons from one atom to another during a reaction results, of course, in one gaining a net positive charge while the other gains a negative charge. This causes them to bond, forming what is known as an ionic bond.

But if an atom has four or five electrons in the outer shell, it enters an arrangement in which it neither loses or gains but rather shares these electrons with other atoms to form a bond. This is known as a covalent bond, because the electrons are co-owned with other atoms.

Not only do atoms have eight or fewer electrons in the outer shell, when the lighter and most abundant atoms combine to form molecules they tend to arrange themselves in such a way as to have eight outer electrons in the molecule. This is known as chemistry's "octet rule", and there is an article about it on www.wikipedia.org .

Just what is it about this number eight in chemistry? I cannot see that there is any real explanation for this. Even back in chemistry class, I thought that there must be some explanation for this out there somewhere.

Electrons mutually repel so that it is more "comfortable" for the atom to have a certain limit to the number of electrons in a shell, although more can "squeeze in" if repulsive pressure from the electrons above made it necessary. This is done because it is a lower energy state to crowd electrons together in inner orbitals than to have a maximum of eight electrons in all orbitals. But what might this tell us about the nature of reality?

Now, let's briefly review my cosmological theory.

The basics of my theory is that matter consists of strings in space that are aligned in mostly the same direction, but are not quite parallel to one another. These strings of matter were thrown across four dimensions of space by the Big Bang, which began the universe. The background space consists of infinitesimal alternating negative and positive charges. Everything falls into place around this simple model.

The greatest mystery of the universe concerns time. What exactly is time, from a physics point of view? I could not find an answer to that anywhere. I decided to find the answer for myself, and that is how I first thought of this model of the universe.

How about the speed of light? We know what it is and can measure it with great precision. But why is the speed of light what it is, and not some other speed? That is what no one could answer. Our consciousness is moving along the bundles of strings, which compose our bodies and brains, at a rate which we perceive as the speed of light. That explains why we cannot find any physical explanation of what time is, it is within ourselves as the movement of our consciousness.

The direction in space along which the strings of matter are primarily aligned is the one of the four dimensions that we perceive as time, the other three we experience as space. This is why we perceive the fundamental building blocks of matter as particles, such as electrons, rather than strings. We can only see at right angles to the present position of our consciousness as it moves along the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains. To see more than this would be to see backwards or forwards in time.

This is also why the speed of light seems to us to be the maximum possible velocity in the universe. The inanimate matter that we see is really at rest, unless we move it. We perceive bundles of strings as objects in motion if the bundles of strings are not perfectly parallel to one another.

Let's now go back to chemistry.

Electrons in orbitals tend to arrange themselves in pairs, with opposite spin. There are four quantum numbers to designate electrons, and no two electrons in an atom can have identical numbers. My theory about this can be read in "The Electronic Model Of  Electron Orbitals" on the physics and astronomy blog. We know that the negatively-charged electrons mutually repel one another. Let's try to relate the arrangement of electrons to dimensions of space.

Consider one dimension, which is just a straight line. If we had a nucleus at one point on the line there would comfortably be room for two electrons, one on each side of the nucleus. An electron is considered as a dimensionless point particle. This must mean that if we had two dimensions, like a flat surface, there would comfortably be room for four electrons. With three dimensions, it would be six electrons.

But if we had four dimensions, which we do in my cosmological theory with one dimension of space being what we perceive as time, atoms and molecules would be most comfortable with eight electrons in the outer orbital, and this is the way it is.

The reason that the outer orbital is so important is that there is no "back pressure" from electrons in higher orbitals to "squeeze in" more electrons. So, my reasoning is that the nature of the outer orbital shell should reveal something about the nature of reality.

Not only that, but the maximum number of electrons in any shell of any atom is thirty-two. This must be a reflection of the nature of reality also. If we lived in only the three dimensions that we can move about in, these maximum numbers of electrons should reflect that. Electrons can be "squeezed into" orbitals, but since they mutually repel this must be done in an orderly manner that should also reflect the nature of reality. Notice that 32 is 8 x 4, or a double multiple of four as 4 x 4 x 2.

Remember the well-established principle in physics known as Occam's Razor. This states that the simplest explanation for something usually turns out to be the best explanation. This may not be true in the world of people, and certainly is not true with natural history, but does seem to be true when dealing with physical sciences like chemistry and physics, and I think that this explanation of the basis of chemistry is about as simple as it is going to get and, once again, shows that my cosmological theory must be correct.

Temperature And Cosmology

Today, I would like to discuss the fascinating relationship between temperature and cosmology, which is the underlying structure of the universe.

First, let's briefly review the nature of temperature. Heat is the movement of atoms and molecules within matter. Some atoms or molecules may initially be moving faster than others. But collisions between them, which imparts kinetic energy to the slower moving ones, gradually evens out the energy of movement so that it creates a fairly uniform temperature.

If we were to make matter colder and colder, meaning that the component atoms or molecules are moving slower and slower, eventually we reach a point where all molecular motion has ceased and the matter cannot get any colder. This lowest possible temperature is known as absolute zero, because it is not possible to get any colder. Absolute zero is -273.16 Celsius, or -459 Fahrenheit.

The Celsius scale of temperature is based on water, which freezes or melts at 0 degrees and boils at 100 degrees. The Fahrenheit scale is arbitrary. A German scientist by that name chose a very cold day and designated the temperature as zero degrees, water at normal atmospheric pressure boils at 212 Fahrenheit.

You may notice that a temperature reading in Fahrenheit can easily be converted into Celsius by subtracting 32, and then multiplying by 5/9.

The science of extremely low temperatures is known as cryogenics. In discussing temperatures not far above absolute zero, we usually use what is known as the Kelvin Temperature Scale. Kelvin uses the same degrees to measure temperature as the Celsius Scale, but Kelvin begins at absolute zero rather than at the freezing point of water. This means that, in Kelvin, ice melts or water freezes at 273.16 degrees and water boils at 373.16 degrees.

At temperatures close to absolute zero, some strange things take place. If we take a tough and flexible sheet of rubber, and cool it to very low temperatures, it will easily shatter like glass. There is one experiment in which air is cooled so much that it liquifies. Then, if we dip a flower into the liquid air, the flower will shatter at the slightest impact like the most fragile glass.

This extreme brittleness as we near absolute zero cannot be explained by conventional chemistry. The rubber is so tough and flexible because it consists of very long molecules, known as polymers, which latch together to form a flexible material that is very difficult to tear or pull apart. The low temperatures do not change this structure. So, how can we explain such a drastic change in material properties due to temperature alone?

Now, let's briefly review my cosmological version of string theory.

So many otherwise unexplainable things about the universe and the nature of reality all fall neatly into place if we accept that matter consists of very long strings, originating and being thrown across space by the Big Bang, in more dimensions of space than we are able to access.

The fastest possible velocity is what we perceive as the speed of light, but that is only because this is the speed at which our consciousness moves along the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains. This is why everything in Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity is a function of the speed of light, but we can find no real reason why the speed of light is what it is.

This means that there is one spatial dimension that we perceive as time. We cannot see into this dimension, but only into our usual three spatial dimensions. The result is that we perceive matter as particles, such as electrons, rather than strings because we can only see one spot on the string at a time. What we perceive as heat is explained in the theory as the bundles of strings that we see as atoms and molecules wrapped around one another, so that we see them as continuously colliding.

I find it to be extremely ironic that we measure both heat and angles in, apparently unrelated, units that we call degrees. My cosmological theory explains heat as the relative angles of the strings composing matter. When the strings are straight, relative to one another meaning no relative angles, we have the matter at a temperature of absolute zero.

A material, such as the rubber sheet, is actually held together by it's component strings being intertwined. We, in our limited dimensional state, do not see it this way. We see this intertwining of the strings composing the matter as atoms and molecules in continous collision, what we refer to as heat. The truth is, according to my cosmological theory, that it is this intertwining of strings that actually holds the material together.

At extremely low temperatures, the structure of polymers and complex molecules latched together is still there. But the fundamental bundles of strings, which we perceive as atoms, form nearly straight lines rather than being wrapped around one another. Without this intertwining of strings, the rubber sheet becomes extremely brittle, even though the latching together of complex molecules which seems to us to give the rubber it's strength, is still there.

I see this as yet more proof that the version of string theory must be correct.

We can see how this explanation of heat as actually the angular bend of the bundles of strings composing atoms and molecules in matter is reflected in what is known as the Ideal Gas Law. Basically a gas, such as oxygen or nitrogen in the air, takes up more volume when it's temperature is increased so that (pressure times volume) divided by absolute temperature remains roughly constant.

This is explained by temperature being actually the relative bend, or angle, of the strings composing the gas. A mass of strings, bent at a certain angle, will be aligned in all different directions. The strings will naturally require a minimum of space if they were all in straight lines so that they are aligned in the same direction. In this condition, we would perceive the material of which the strings are composed as being at a temperature of absolute zero.

More space is obviously required as the strings become more bent so that their directional alignment angles are increasingly different from one another, and to the direction along which they are primarily aligned. This is why we perceive a gas as requiring more volume as it's temperature increases.

Temperature of a gas requires a certain density. If a gas is too sparse, the concept of temperature is rather meaningless. It is the force of what we perceive as the collisions, rather than the what we perceive as the actual velocity of the what we perceive as the particles composing the matter, that makes up it's temperature.

The bends of individual bundles of strings, atoms, tend to even out to an average by interaction with one another, which we perceive as collisions. We experience this bending of the strings in all different directions as heat because our consciousness is moving along the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains at what we perceive as the speed of light.

We know that there is a minimum temperature, absolute zero. But is there a maximum possible temperature, at least from our perception?

My conclusion as to maximum possible temperature is that temperature depends on this interweaving of strings, or the fundamental bundles of strings that we perceive as atoms, undergoing what we perceive as collisions due to heat energy. A single particle or atom or group of atoms in motion has no temperature. This must mean that there is, in fact, a maximum possible temperature and it can be described as a function of the speed of light.

A collection of the strings that we perceive as atoms or particles cannot be interweaved if their component strings are bent at an angle of more than 45 degrees, which in my string theory represents half of what we perceive as the speed of light. Therefore, the maximum possible temperature is when the rapidly colliding atoms are particles are moving with an average velocity of half the speed of light.

In other words, component particles with regard to temperature cannot be moving away from each other at more than what we perceive as the speed of light. Remember that if the matter we are dealing with is enclosed in a container of some type, the atoms of which the conatiner is composed is also a part of the average.

This cannot, unfortunately, be readily expressed in degrees of temperature because it would be different for different component particles because the heavier the particle, the more kinetic energy in their motion and thus the higher the possible temperature.

We can state that, at least theoretically, the energy required to heat a given mass to it's maximum possible temperature is equal to energy required to accelerate the mass, as a whole, to half the speed of light. I say "theoretically" because some of the energy, applied as heat, could go to breaking atoms apart into their component particles at such high temperatures, as well as being lost by radiation, instead of going toward the actual raising of the temperature.