Gravity Chapter
6: The Field Atom
If we now reject the unproven and illogical, and patently unproductive,
concepts of an ‘empty space’, or vacuum, and consequently the kinetic
motion of atoms, both of which were originally assumed in order to
explain the fluidity of gases, and instead consider that there is no
empty space or void between atoms and no characteristic of eternal
kinetic motion of atoms, then the question must be asked as to what
fills the space between the nucleus of each individual atom and the
next, in any state?
The ‘Rutherford’ Atom
The concept of the atom was developed from Democritus
through to Gassendi and Bernoulli and onto Clerk Maxwell,
whereupon it was described as a rigid, solid sphere somewhat like a
billiard ball or a steel ball bearing, and, while other concepts were
proposed by JJ Thompson for example, this picture continued to
be accepted, at least by the protagonist’s of kinetic atomic
theory, until 1911.
Rutherford in 1909 began an experiment that involved directing
the sub-atomic particles that he called alpha particles
at sheets of gold foil of a thickness of 0.00004 cm. Most
of the particles went straight through the foil, however a small
number, 1 in 20,000, were deflected strongly at an average of 90°
while some came directly back, which astonished Rutherford.
Analysing these results led him to propose a completely
different picture of the atom in 1911.
The ‘Rutherford’ atom has a very small, (relative to the
total suggested volume of the atom) unimaginably dense
nucleus and is surrounded by one or more minute, and also
very dense, electrons orbiting the nucleus at high speed.
The nucleus, it is said, consists of protons, which are
particles with a positive electrical charge, and neutrons, which
are electrically neutral, while the orbiting electrons have negative
charge.
The simplest atom hydrogen has a nucleus consisting of
one proton and has one orbiting electron. All other elements
have a nucleus with both protons and neutrons and usually
the numbers of orbiting electrons match the number of protons
in the nucleus.
The mass of the electron is calculated to be about 0.0005
of the mass of the proton (or the nucleus in hydrogen)
and they are very dense at 2 x 1017 Kg/M3.
Rutherford calculated the diameter of the nucleus to be
between 1/10,000 and 1/100,000 that of the outer orbit
of the electron/s.
The outer orbit of the electrons is considered the extent
of the atom. The outer limits of these orbits, or ‘shield’
of an atom are assumed to describe a sphere, though not
necessarily a completely symmetrical one.
These electrons are orbiting at a great distance from the
nucleus and this space between the nucleus and the electrons
is again considered to be empty space.
To put this in rough perspective, if a hydrogen nucleus
was scaled up to the size of a pea then the orbit of the
electron would be greater than the diameter of a cricket
pitch. The mass of the pea to scale would be 800 million
tonnes while the electron would weigh about 400,000 tonnes
(and would be virtually invisible to the human eye with
a diameter of .003 mm).
So here we have a ‘picture’ of an atom where we have a
nucleus of unimaginable density surrounded by tiny ‘electrons’
of a similar density orbiting at a relatively huge distance
from the nucleus.16
Figure 18
Clearly there are significant differences in the characteristics of
these two atomic concepts one of which is that now the quantity of
empty space has increased significantly by the addition of a sub-atomic
empty space.
But this new picture apparently did not require any modification
or adjustment to the prior assumptions of perfect elasticity
during the collisions of kinetic molecules and atoms with one another.
However it did lead to another problem, and one that could
not be ignored, in that quantum mechanics indicated that
the Rutherford type atom would collapse, due to the electron spiralling
into the nucleus, however this was subsequently resolved, essentially
by a modification Nils Bohr proposed to the assumed characteristics
of the electron.
We can now compare this picture with the earlier concept
upon which kinetic theory was based. The original concept,
as depicted in the figure below, is of billiard ball type atoms vibrating
within a set space or lattice.
(These diagrams below are not to any particular scale or
accurate configuration; their purpose is to demonstrate
the concepts.)
The second diagram below is a section through a solid where
the atoms are in one plane and shows the outer limits of
their potential motion in this plane according to the
theory. I.e. the atoms would essentially be confined to their own
space and not allowed to move outside.
Figure 19
The figure below depicts the ‘Rutherford’ atom in a ‘kinetic’ solid
within the same confines as the ‘Maxwell’ atoms in Fig. 19 and showing
the ‘empty space’ within which each atom can vibrate with kinetic motion,
and the sub-atomic ‘empty space’ surrounding the nucleus to the outer
limit of the electron shield.
Figure 20
The Rutherford experiments about 1919 indicated that there is a very
small percentage of the volume of a very fine sheet of solid matter
that is capable of deflecting an atomic particle directed at it.
This was interpreted, following the atomic hypothesis,
as indicating that, instead of the earlier assumption of
a solid ‘billiard ball’, the ‘Rutherford’ atom was then assumed to
be composed of a relatively large volume of space containing a very
small and very dense solid particle at the centre, i.e. a nucleus
or core, surrounded by other, even smaller, solid particles (electrons)
that were orbiting at a distance from the central particle.
This ‘picture’ of the atom then needed to be incorporated
into the, then generally accepted, kinetic atomic theory
and accordingly it was assumed that this atom in a solid
was oscillating or vibrating in an ‘external’ empty space outside
of the orbit/s of the electron/s, which existed between each atom
and its adjacent vibrating atoms. Thus in matter in any state there
were two ‘empty spaces’ one between the nucleus and the outer orbiting
electrons (the electron shell or shield) and one between this shell
and the adjacent atoms.
In each state the volume of the external
‘empty space’ varied due to an increase or decrease of
the ‘kinetic’ motion of the atoms. In the case in point of a sheet
of solid matter, the total volume of both atomic and sub-atomic ‘empty
space’ surrounding each nucleus was, in comparison to the suggested
volume of the nucleus, was assumed to be enormous, which would allow
the vast majority of the particles fired at it to pass unhindered through
this ‘empty space’ component of the sheet.
Field Theory Assumptions
If however we interpret these results
in a different way and, while broadly accepting the concept
of an ultimate, ‘atomic’ division of matter, suggest that the intervening
space between each atomic core or nucleus is composed of
a ‘store’ of energy that fluctuates in volume with energy
input or emission.
Further that this energy store occupies all the space between
the nuclei of atoms in any state and that the density of
this energy field decreases in proportion to an increase
in altitude from the nucleus.
It can therefore be suggested that a particle fired at
such a fine sheet of solid matter would not be deflected
by the outer, less dense, energy field and only be deflected
by the nucleus and the higher densities in the close proximity
of it.
Thus it is assumed that the observed increase or decrease
in any volume of matter resulting from the absorption or
emission of energy is a consequence of the absorption or
emission of energy into and from the energy fields of the
individual atoms of which it is composed.
Some initial assumptions as to the characteristics of atoms.
1) Each atom, having mass, exerts an attractive force on each of its
adjacent atoms.
2) This gravitational attraction obeys Newton’s Laws and
is inversely proportional to the square of the distance (or the altitude
from the nucleus).
3) The energy field of each atom fills the space available
to it completely, i.e. all the volume between the core/nucleus and
the outer peripheries of the fields of adjacent atoms.
4) The energy field of each atom exerts a force of resistance
to incursion by the force fields of adjacent atoms.
5) The state of a vacuum is not possible.
Applying these assumptions to a volume of matter in any state, the
natural formation would be that all the atoms within this volume would
arrange themselves in the closest possible association consistent with
their energy level.
As discussed earlier it is observed that any change in
volume is ultimately proportional to the energy emitted
or absorbed and, if the hypothetical case of an isolated
atom is considered, the diagram below puts into perspective
some relative atomic field volumes for the solid, liquid and gas
states of an element.
Figure 21
It is now necessary to examine how atoms will associate in any volume
of matter given the assumed inter-atomic forces outlined above.
Inter-atomic Forces
In Figure A below we have three atoms lying in
the same plane showing their theoretical, maximum area
of influence of the energy field, which for an isolated, single atom
would ideally describe a perfect sphere centred on the core or the
nucleus.
While the gravitational attraction of the mass of each
atom would tend to pull them into close proximity, this
force combined with the repulsive force, or the resistance
to compression of the energy field, would distort the
spherical shape as depicted in Figure B and Figure C.
Figure 22
Arrangements of Atoms
If we now proceed to consider larger
numbers of atoms in close proximity and if a single atom
is envisaged suspended in space and as many other atoms
as possible that are of equal dimensions placed in contact
with it, then this cluster would take on the form shown
in the figure below, where the central atom marked A, is surrounded
by twelve others that are also in direct contact with it.
This natural configuration means that each individual atom
in a volume of matter is similarly surrounded by and in
contact with 12 other atoms.
Figure 23
Dodecahedron
If we now consider the outer periphery of the central,
individual atom in this situation, it is gravitationally
attracted to the surrounding 12 atoms that are in contact
with it, while at the same time its energy field is repulsing
each of their energy fields, so as it is experiencing the
same attractive and compressive forces from each of these
12 atoms, it will be evident therefore that the outer periphery of
the energy field of the central atom will take on the form of a dodecahedron
as depicted below. And of course all other atoms in the same volume
of gas that are surrounded by atoms of equal dimensions will be affected
by the same forces and take the same form.
Figure 24
Of course the main question now is how this close association
of atoms in any state allows the observed variations in viscosity
from the (generally) rigid state of a solid to the highly fluid gaseous
state.
It will be obvious that in the solid state, as the outer
periphery of the energy field is in a closer proximity
to the nucleus, the inter-atomic gravitational force is strong.
Also the greater density of the energy field at this point
will result in a correspondingly strong repulsive force.
The combination of these two forces and the resultant form
of the outer energy field will clearly result in a comparably
strong frictional force between atoms in the closer arrangement
of the solid state.
Fig.25
It is also quite clear from the diagram above that the expansion into
the liquid and further into the gas state, will result in reductions
in the inter-atomic frictional forces at the outer peripheries of the
energy fields. This will naturally translate into a reduction in viscosity
in these changes of state.
This basic model can now be tested against two of the phenomena
described earlier where the kinetic theory of gases fails
to provide any explanation for the atomic interactions that lead
to the observed reactions.
Continued >
Back to Gravity Contents >
|
