The Kinetic Theory of Matter is the theory on which all science today is based. Whether we are looking at the microscopic, the macroscopic or the human perspective this is the postulate upon which the teaching of science in schools, colleges and universities throughout the world has been based for most of this century.
This theory describes the actions and interactions of the smallest entities of matter in their three natural forms, gas, liquid and solid and it’s origins lie in Greek theories on the nature of matter.
The first known atomic theory was put forward about 400 BC by Democritus who suggested that ‘ matter consisted of minute hard particles moving as separate units in empty space’. The Roman, Lucretius later further defined this movement in that ‘ atoms of all bodies are in ceaseless motion, colliding and rebounding from each other’.
From that time there was little, known, development of these ideas until the 17th Century when Gassendi, wrote that ‘atoms (are) similar in substance , although different in size and form, (and) move in all directions through empty space and (are) devoid of all qualities except absolute rigidity’ Bernoulli continued this theme in his publication of 1738 and later Clausius considered that a gas consisted mostly of ‘space’ in his mathematical deduction of Boyle’s and Charles’ gas laws.
Up to this point the development of ideas about the microscopic structure of matter was more inclined to the theoretical rather than the empirical and when Brownian Motion, i.e. the phenomenon of erratically moving particles in gases and liquids, was observed it was proposed by some as an example of the effect of the kinetic motion of atoms.
Subsequently Maxwell put forward his Law of Distribution of Velocities as a statistical explanation of how the average motion of atomic particles in a gas related to the velocity of individual atoms and this law was later elaborated by Boltzmann. The later experiments involving molecular beam techniques were later accepted by some as a confirmation of the principles of kinetic theory. However at this point in time (mid 1800’s), kinetic theory was not generally accepted and intense debate continued on this subject.
Later the work done by Einstein and, it is said, separately by Von Smoluchowski, about the turn of the century, ‘showed that this (Brownian) motion, although random, obeys a definite statistical law,.
Kinetic Theory suggests that molecules in a dilute gas are ‘ rushing around at different velocities and bouncing off each other and the walls like a three dimensional game of billiards’.
These molecules in a container ‘ are moving in random directions, and because as many move in one direction as another , the average velocity of the molecules is zero’ – in other words the gas as a whole is not moving or producing unequal pressure on any inside surface of the container.
‘ Pressure arises from the multiple collisions the molecules of a gas have with the walls that contain the gas’ and ‘heat applied to a gas results in an increase in the velocity of the molecules and a corresponding increase in collisions with (and consequently the pressure on) the walls’
Also ‘when the fast moving molecules of a hot gas collide with slower moving molecules of a cooler gas, kinetic energy is transferred from the ‘hot’ to the ‘cold’ molecules’.
In addition the theory suggests that the molecules of a gas only take up a minute proportion of the actual space the gas occupies. ‘ A molecule generally takes up only 1/1000th of the volume available to it and if we were to scale molecules to the size of human beings with a radius of 0.5 M, the molecules would be spaced some 10 M apart.’ In other words in any given volume of a gas only about 0.1% is matter in form of ‘solid’ molecules. To put this in some sort of perspective 1000 cubic centimetres (one Litre) of gas contains a total volume of atomic matter which could be fitted into 1 cc while the remaining 999 cc’s are empty ‘space’.
With this spacing the molecules, on average, have to go some distance before colliding with another and the theory states that ‘ the mean free path of a molecule is some 3000 times greater than the diameter of the molecule itself’.
The velocity of individual gas molecules cannot be zero (as according to Kinetic Theory this reflects a state of zero kinetic energy), but can be from zero up to the infinite. The average velocity of air molecules at normal climatic temperatures and pressures however is in the region of 500-900 metres per second. The theory suggests that the large majority of air molecules are travelling in the region of these velocities.
The diagram below shows this (approximate) random, distribution of gas molecules in a container at constant temperature and pressure in ‘in ceaseless motion’ according to Kinetic Theory .
This provokes some questions.
The first is, what is in the spaces between these molecules?
It is, I think, quite significant that no textbook or any publication generally available attempts to discuss or explain what this ‘space’ is.
However this space obviously has to be, either some form of matter or ‘ether’ that has not been identified, as it’s structure according to Kinetic Theory can clearly not be atomic, or it is nothing and therefore as the theory suggests literally ‘empty space’. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that this means completely empty, or devoid of matter. Space which is completely empty of matter is by definition a perfect vacuum.
Standard dictionaries in defining the word ‘vacuum’ include examples of ‘partial vacuums’ and it is therefore necessary to define a perfect vacuum as ‘a space completely devoid of matter’ or in other words a space that contains no atoms, molecules, ‘ether’ or any subatomic particle identified or unidentified and is consequently neither host to, or influenced by, any energy or force.
For centuries man has been attempting to create ‘higher’ vacuums and has only succeeded in producing partial vacuums. Initially by evacuating gas from containers with mechanical pumps, and in this context it is perfectly clear that no piston/cylinder system, for example, can be manufactured by man which can prevent individual atoms bypassing the seals of such an apparatus manufactured to the finest tolerances achievable by modern techniques.
More refined methods such as diffusion, ionisation, chemisorption etc. are used to produce ‘high’ partial vacuums for commercial and experimental use and development of these and other techniques will no doubt ultimately achieve even higher partial vacuums than the current levels. However it is clear that it is as difficult to achieve a perfect vacuum as it is to get to absolute zero on the Kelvin scale of temperature. This is of course quite logical as the state of a perfect vacuum is a state of zero matter and consequently zero energy and therefore zero temperature. In other words these states are concurrent and identical and one cannot be achieved without the other.
Kinetic Theory however clearly suggests that this state of zero matter, and consequently therefore zero energy and temperature exists freely between the atoms of all matter in any state, solid ,liquid or gas. Not only does it suggest this but postulates that in a gas at 1ATM the volume of this ‘space’ is 99.9% of the total volume of the gas.
The second question is how do these molecules maintain their velocities?
In practice, as observation confirms, a gas confined in a sealed container will continue to maintain a pressure on the internal walls of the container indefinitely.
Kinetic Theory postulates that this pressure is produced by molecules moving about at high speed within the container bouncing off each other and the sides of the container and states that ‘the molecules leave the wall (of the container) with , on average , as much energy as with which they arrive’.
It is quite clear however that in maintaining the integrity of the container against outside pressure any collision of a molecule with the container has to exert a force on the wall and in classical Newtonian physics this collision would result in a loss of energy.
This was a problem for early proponents of Kinetic Theory and it was solved by suggesting that ‘all collisions between molecules are perfectly elastic; all kinetic energy is conserved’ suggesting that molecules somehow lose no energy or momentum as a result of exerting a force in these collisions and are capable of doing this perpetually.
Of course this raises further questions such as when does this condition of perfect elasticity disappear, as any larger combination of molecules and atoms does not demonstrate this quality? Is it when one molecule joins with another to form a particle of matter?
Is it really possible to logically consider a container of gas sealed and left for one hundred years and having no additional energy input, with the molecules inside maintaining kinetic velocities of 500m/s without loss of momentum, and thereby the internal pressure, for all this time??
The third question is what induces these molecules to increase velocity with the introduction of heat by electromagnetic radiation?
Consider a molecule exposed to such radiation and as a result increasing it’s velocity. This radiation has been transmitted through a vacuum to this molecule and the molecule is moving in a vacuum. The question of how this transmission is effected through a vacuum we will ignore at this stage, but how is this input of radiation translated into an increased motion of the molecule? What is the output force and what is it acting upon in a vacuum? Why should the effects of this input of radiation, from a random direction, act on the molecule and all the other molecules in the direction in which each molecule is currently travelling?
Attempting to answer these basic and obvious questions just raises more questions which do not appear to be answered by the application of kinetic theory.
If we look at some practical examples of applying kinetic theory principles to observed natural phenomena, firstly Kinetic Theory gives no clear explanation of how heat transfer actually is effected between different materials. It fails to explain, for example, how this in a gas or a liquid causes a localised convective movement.
The example above is a hot object placed in contact with a gas at a lower temperature. What occurs in practice is that where the gas meets the object convection currents are clearly observed rising close to the surface of the object.
Kinetic Theory states that ‘Molecules that move more rapidly because they are in a region of higher temperature collide with molecules in a neighbouring region, giving the adjacent molecules more kinetic energy and consequently more thermal energy’.
The inference that would be drawn from this is that the gas molecules that somehow absorb thermal energy either by collision with, or radiation from, the object depicted above would increase their velocity relative to surrounding molecules and by the process of further collision distribute the thermal energy to other molecules in all directions, and it is quite clear that this kinetic process, in itself, would not result in convection currents.
Textbooks brush over this very important heat transfer process by vague phraseology such as ‘In free convection the heating process produces a temperature and density gradient in the fluid and fluid motion is induced by the action of gravity’
Also ‘temperature gradients induce convection in fluids, a phenomena that involves the movement of gases or liquids’.
If there is ‘a density gradient’ this must mean that the gas or liquid is less dense at this particular point than that in the surrounding matter.
How can a ‘kinetic’ gas, consisting of 99.9% ‘space’, become less dense?
Kinetic Theory says that ‘heat applied to a gas results in an increase in the velocity of the molecules and a corresponding increase in collisions’ and suggests that this increase in collisions results in a greater average molecular separation.
Clearly this would mean that where this occurs there would be fewer molecules per unit space and the total mass and therefore the density of this unit volume would be reduced by comparison with adjacent cooler unit volumes of gas.
However if a gas consists of molecules moving independently of each other in space (a vacuum) and the mass of these molecules remains the same and further there is ‘no attraction between molecules’, then gravity can only act on individual molecules and not the gas as a whole because if the gas as a whole is 99.9% a vacuum this proportion of the gas has no mass and accordingly cannot be influenced by gravity. It follows therefore that an individual molecule in a larger volume of space has the same gravitational attraction as another molecule of the same mass in a smaller volume of space.
Kinetic Theory is therefore suggesting that a single molecule in a larger area of ‘space’ moving at greater velocity has a lower gravitational attraction to the earth than a slower one of the same mass in a smaller area of ‘space’. However it is the ‘space’ that has expanded and the ‘space’ cannot be affected by gravity as it is devoid of matter. Or to put it in another way if the mass of the molecule remains the same, the gravitational effect in a vacuum would be unchanged.
The theory also has difficulty with the diffusion of heat in gases as heat transference within a gas does not proceed as fast as the theory predicts.
‘It should seem to follow from the fact that the velocities of molecules are very great that the temperature should level out very rapidly. Experiments show, however, that the thermal conductivity of gases is low. A considerable time elapses before the temperature of the gas levels out if one part is heated more than the other’.
Let us look at this in practice. We take a long sealed cylinder divided internally into two parts containing any gas. We heat the gas at one end of the cylinder so that the gas pressure in this end is double that of the other. We then remove the division between the two ends. What happens in practice is that the pressure of the gas in the whole cylinder equalises instantaneously. The temperature however equalises at a much slower rate. This means initially that at one end of the cylinder we have a hot gas and the other end we have a cool gas at the same pressure or in Kinetic Theory terms we have relatively fast moving molecules at one end and slow moving ones at the other end producing the same pressure on the internal surfaces of the cylinder.
Kinetic Theory states that the pressure of gas is dependent upon the velocity of molecules and in this instance it is clear that it is not. A textbook in attempting to explain this contradiction states that ‘the collisions between them evidently prevent the free movements of molecules’. Well the inference that should be drawn from this is that if the free movement of molecules is prevented by collision then the transference of energy will be also prevented and if the theory is followed logically the slower moving molecules at one end will continue to maintain a lower pressure there than that of the other end, until they are speeded up by collision with faster moving molecules. It is clear that in kinetic terms either the temperature and pressure should level out instantaneously, or that the temperature and the pressure should remain at a differential at each end of the cylinder until equalisation eventually takes place.
A third example is that transport phenomena of admixture of two different gases does not proceed as the theory predicts.
Again I quote from a textbook on molecular physics:-
‘Since this transport is also ensured by motion of the molecules, and the velocities of the molecules are high, diffusion should seem to occur rapidly with the concentrations leveling out almost instantaneously. Experiments show , however, that at atmospheric pressure diffusion is a very slow process, and mixing in the absence of motion of the gas as a whole may last several days’ .
This observation is confirmed in practice by the mixing of gases for commercial use and an example is the mixing of nitrogen and helium. If say a 5% helium content is required and the appropriate quantity of helium is introduced into a cylinder and then the balance of nitrogen is introduced separately the helium will remain at the bottom of the cylinder indefinitely. It will also remain at the top if it is introduced after the nitrogen. To achieve a balanced mixture of helium throughout the nitrogen the cylinder is rotated or ‘rumbled’ for some hours on a machine to thoroughly mix the gases.
To put this into perspective let us look at the theoretical situation of a container which has internal dimensions of less than the mean free path of both nitrogen and helium as depicted in the diagram below.
In this container there are two separate compartments one containing helium, the other nitrogen. In each compartment the gas molecules are moving at their relevant average velocities, say 1000m/s and 500m/s respectively, and each is colliding with every wall of the compartment and maintaining pressure on these walls.
We then remove the intervening wall as in the second diagram below and we can postulate, in accordance with the observed result in practice, that the gases will then remain separated indefinitely.
Kinetic Theory itself states, as we have seen, that diffusion should seem to occur rapidly with the concentrations levelling out almost instantaneously. It is quite clear in this example that if Kinetic Theory is valid then this mixing would occur immediately.
In an attempt to explain this problem the proponents of Kinetic Theory suggest that while the molecules in the above example move chaotically at high velocity collisions with the molecules of the other gas mean they always end up in the area from which they started in the first place, somehow, in this particular instance, showing chaotic and ordered characteristic’s at the same time. In other words suggesting that any collisions that they endure with molecules of the other gas must result in their returning to the area in which they originated.
Given the postulated chaotic, kinetic movement, and the velocities and ‘spaces’ between molecules, the fact that mixing is not, in commercial and experimental practice, very rapid, is direct and incontrovertible proof that this theory is invalid.
The Ideal (Perfect) Gas Laws are another example, which were developed from Kinetic Theory, and are an imperfect model of the reactions of gases to changes in pressure and temperature and even then in a very limited range of conditions. Even with numerous subsequent modifications and adjustments they still fail to produce a model which can be relied on today.
For example a textbook states that ‘ The ideal-gas equation is not valid at high pressures’ and ‘the ideal gas equation is valid for all gases at sufficiently low densities and sufficiently high temperatures’
A clear example is that these laws completely fail to predict the behaviour of gases during the change of state from gas to liquid. An example is Carbon Dioxide at the point of liquidisation. Again I quote ‘for carbon dioxide at 60 ATM all similarity to perfect gas behaviour is lost’.
Let us look at this particular change of state more closely. According to Kinetic Theory the progression from gas to liquid should follow the pattern as shown in the graph below for a ‘Perfect Gas’ and the progression is valid initially. Which means that in Kinetic Theory terms the molecules, being confined into less and less ‘space’ due to the decrease in volume corresponding to the increase in applied pressure, collide more and more often with the walls and each other thus resisting the applied pressure.
According to Kinetic Theory atoms in a liquid are positioned in relation to each other at less than one molecular diameter apart and in a gas at Standard Temperature and Pressure 10 molecular diameters. The progression in the graph shows that at a point where the molecules are on average about 4 diameters apart there is suddenly no additional resistance to the applied pressure and the molecules essentially move to 1 diameter apart and the gas liquefies.
Current teaching of Kinetic Theory principles attempts to explain this anomaly by saying that at Standard Temperature and Pressure separations there is no attraction between the molecules of a gas and that as the separation reduces progressively they begin to attract and the attraction increases strongly (in a non-linear fashion) and the force between molecules then reverses and becomes strongly repulsive in the liquid state.
Again this explanation is illogical. How can there, at one point in the progression, be no attraction whatever, then attraction progressively increases, then decreases to a point where there is neither attraction or repulsion, then finally strong repulsion develops. What are these attractive and repulsive forces and what is causing them to vary in an irregular fashion? How do they act through and in a vacuum?
This pattern follows the whole development of Kinetic Theory from Clerk Maxwell’s Laws to the present day, in that where natural phenomena or experimental results have not conformed to the theory then ‘adjustments’ have been made one after the other in order to try and tailor the theory to suit the observed phenomena. This leaves us today with a theory which is so convoluted and ‘adjusted’ so that even where it is capable of practical application is extremely complicated and cumbersome. It needs to be reiterated that it is of course a ‘theory’ which means that there is no experimental evidence which unequivocally proves that molecules are moving a high velocities in a vacuum in any gas. Any contrived experiment that has been carried out to prove this theory have been on the basis of assumptions whereas the examples above are naturally occurring phenomena.
How did this situation develop?
The problem I believe began when some Renaissance and post-Renaissance theorists based their ideas on the nature of matter on the atomic theories of Democritus and other Grecian and Roman philosophers.
Subsequently Clerk Maxwell and Boltzmann followed Clausius in making the same presumption that ‘ atoms of all bodies are in ceaseless motion, colliding and rebounding from each other’ in developing the Laws of Distribution.
The basic presumption was that the motion of the atoms of a gas produced the observed variations of pressure and volume.
If one makes this presumption then quite clearly it would be possible to come up with a model of spaces, velocities, masses, numbers of collisions etc. etc. which will support this and further to develop this model to cover the observed simple relationships between pressure, temperature and volume of gases under limited conditions. For example, with the tiny atomic masses involved, to allow for the velocities to develop to produce pressure by collision then a relatively huge amount ‘space’ must be introduced between molecules to further allow for the concept of a ‘mean free path’ free of any restriction such as friction or too frequent collisions with other molecules. In addition an attribute has to be given to molecules which does not apply to matter in any larger proportions, that of perfect elasticity.
The phenomenon of Brownian Motion of microscopic particles is said to be caused by the kinetic motion of atoms, and has been accepted by some as being a manifestation of the effects of this motion, we must start there to examine these questions.
Brownian Motion is the observed random movement of particles suspended in a gas or liquid. This motion of smoke particles in air or pollen particles in water is erratic and difficult to predict and according to Kinetic Theory is due to molecules colliding with the particle.
As the diameter of an average smoke particle has been calculated to be 20,000 times that of a molecule then if, to put this in perspective, we imagine a molecule to be 1mm in diameter then the diameter of a smoke particle to scale would be 20 Metres.
To put this in visual perspective, to this scale, the arc of a circle of 20 metres diameter subtended by 1 degree from it’s centre would measure approximately 175 mm and this arc if drawn across this page would appear to most eyes as a straight line. Accordingly the line in the diagram below represents such an arc and the relative size and distribution of air molecules at Standard Temperature and Pressure according to Kinetic Theory.
In considering this situation in practical terms, it is quite clear that it would require an enormous number of directional, concentrated and sustained molecular collisions to move an object of this relative size even a fraction of a millimetre. This must occur on one part or side of the particle and must correspond to a lack of , or lesser number, of collisions occurring simultaneously on the opposing side of the particle.
This concerted molecular movement would also have to be a relatively frequent one to produce the movement of particles as seen in Brownian Motion and it would need to be of a reasonable duration to overcome inertia. It would also be reasonable to assume that similar concerted movements of molecules would occur over the whole volume of the gas or liquid and not just in the vicinity of the particle concerned.
This is occurring in a gas where Kinetic Theory states that ‘because as many ( molecules ) move in one direction as another, the average velocity of the molecules is zero’.
It must be quite clear that, whatever any statistical laws may show, looking at this in practical terms the postulate that Brownian Motion of small particles, such as pollen, results from the collective collisions of individual molecules is preposterous.
So here today we have a situation where an phenomenon of movement of particles in gases and liquids, i.e. Brownian Motion, has influenced scientific thinking for over a hundred years. There are other such unexplained, and equally unimportant, phenomena in nature, St. Elmo’s Fire is an example.
I believe the reason why this situation has continued without serious debate in this century was that ‘Einstein showed that this motion, although random, obeys a definite statistical law’, ‘and is in accordance with statistics used by Boltzmann and Maxwell to describe the kinetic motion of molecules’. In other words a set of statistics based on another set of statistics, all of which are based on a 2500 year old assumption that ‘atoms are in ceaseless motion’.
With the introduction of Einstein’s Relativity theory and his subsequent rise to fame and authority, subsequent debate about the validity of Kinetic Theory was, in effect, ended.
As the resulting models formulated on the basis of these ideas cannot predict simple but crucially important phenomena, such as convection, diffusion, the change of state from gas to liquid, etc., it is time to reactivate debate and to look for alternatives that can answer the serious problems that are evident as a result of total reliance on this theory.
It is however quite astonishing to me that this theory with it’s evident serious flaws and contradictions has been accepted by the scientific establishment for the whole of this century without serious examination.
I suggest it is time to consider again Newton’s statement:-
“That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.”
The assumption that ‘atoms are in ceaseless motion’ in a vacuum is unproven and the theory developed on the basis of this assumption is, as we have seen, self contradictory.
The only conclusion that can be drawn from the foregoing examples of the diffusion of heat and admixture of different gases is that atoms are not moving at high velocities. The question therefore becomes whether or not they are moving at all. In the example of the adding of helium to a container of nitrogen, commercial experience is that no mixing takes place over a very long period. On the other hand when mixing is effected by mechanical means the mixture remains in perfect proportions indefinitely. This is remarkable in view of the fact that helium is a much lighter element than nitrogen and it would be expected that it would tend to accumulate at the top of any container eventually.
It follows therefore that it is reasonable and logical to postulate that there is no self generated movement of atoms in a gas. It should follow therefore that there is no such movement at all in matter in the other two natural states.
With respect to ‘space’ between atoms it is I suggest completely illogical to even consider that there is a vacuum, or rather a state of zero mass, energy and therefore pressure and temperature, existing within matter in any of it’s states.
For an alternative theory we must therefore begin with the premise that there is no space or vacuum existing in any gas, liquid or solid and there is no inherent motion of atoms.
It is generally accepted that atoms can expand or contract with absorption or emission of energy. For example the hydrogen atom in it’s ground state, it is said, can absorb energy and expand the radius of it’s electron ‘shield’ up to five times and this increase in volume of the hydrogen atom has been shown to result from absorption of electromagnetic radiation of various wavelengths.
If it is possible for an atom to do this at this level is it not a reasonable and logical assumption that perhaps an atom can absorb a greater amount of energy from the electromagnetic spectra and store this energy in a larger force field than we have been able to detect? A field that could extend some way beyond the theoretical limit of the outer ‘electron shield’.
If this idea can for the moment be considered, it means that we would have to review our ideas about the structure of the atom and in particular about the potential size of the force field. Bearing in mind also that the dimensions of atoms have been calculated by the application of Kinetic Theory principles.
Our knowledge of atomic structure is governed by the obvious fact that that we cannot see objects this small, so our understanding , and for humans this means being able to visualise this structure, has been built up by stimulating atoms to react by, for example, using electron or scanning tunnelling microscopes, emission or absorption spectra etc. etc.. and interpreting the reactions.
These interpretations are not helped by not having a clear and unequivocal knowledge of what these stimulating forces or ‘particles’ are in the first place, which means that again these interpretations are based on assumptions.
The outer limits of the fields of the atom we assume, reasonably, to describe a sphere.
Suppose for a moment that the size of the force field was larger than currently assumed and that its energy density or potential decreased progressively from the nucleus outwards . If ‘particles’ were fired at the atom, passing through the weaker outer fields, then one can assume that little or no reaction would be registered. However, as these particles pass nearer the nucleus into the ‘orbits’ of ‘electrons’ the strength of the reaction increases, until collision with the nucleus generates an even stronger reaction. If the weak outer field generates little or no reaction then this may be why it has not been discovered or it’s dimension has been underestimated.
Consider, for example, the change of state of a liquid to a gas where there is a large expansion in volume. A large quantity of ‘latent’ energy is absorbed by the liquid in effecting this change of state and when vapourisation eventually takes place a dramatic expansion in the order of 7 times the liquid volume occurs.
This large expansion of the volume is proportional to the quantity of energy absorbed. Is it not logical therefore to suggest that this energy absorption is directly (rather than indirectly) related to this subsequent expansion? In other words this energy is absorbed by individual atoms and translated into an expansion of the atomic force field and consequently into the expansion of the gas as a whole
I am suggesting that atoms at any pressure contract or expand to fill the available space. The force fields of atoms in any natural state whether in a gas, liquid or a solid either would retain their spherical shape and have the weaker outer part of their force fields overlapping, or more likely would have the force fields partly compressed by the pressure of those of adjacent atoms. Either way the attractive force of the nucleus and the repulsive force, or resistance to compression, would be in balance, whatever the state or the pressure and temperature and there would be no ‘space’ or vacuum between atoms.
A reasonable analogy for this would be to fill a room full to capacity with spherical balloons and then extract the air remaining in the pockets between the balloons from the room. The balloons would then expand and fill the space and (those away from the walls, ceiling and floor) would due to the pressure of 12 contacting, and surrounding, balloons form a twelve sided equilateral shape, i.e. a regular dodecahedron having 12 pentagonal faces as shown below.
As atoms are, in natural circumstances, considered indestructible and perpetual they could also logically be considered to exert a perpetual repulsive resistance, as long as their energy level is maintained. An increase or a decrease in energy levels will correspondingly increase or decrease the repulsive force resisting foreign incursion into, and compression of, the force field, but will not alter the attractive force of the nucleus which for any given mass will remain the same.
The dense nucleus of the atom, it can be suggested, will extend it’s attractive ‘gravitational’ influence beyond the periphery of the force field and will counterbalance the resistance of the force field at all energy levels.
The repulsive force, being simply a resistance to incursion or compression of the force or rather ‘energy’ field, acts only on and within the boundaries of the field itself.
Diagram A below is a representation of a cross section of a group of atoms in any state. The six sided shapes represent the extent of each atomic force field and the concentric rings the attractive force of the nucleus. ( These six sided shapes are shown as regular for simplicity’s sake, as in a cross section of a dodecahedron in this instance they will, of course, be irregular).
A
Diagram B below shows the interlocking attractive forces of an adjoining atom.
B
Gas pressure on the inside of any container is simply maintained by the combined repulsive forces of the outer force fields of atoms on the walls of the container and each other.
The changes of state of matter according to this idea can be outlined very briefly as follows.
In a solid the atoms have relatively low energy levels and are in close proximity. The range of influence of the attractive force of the nucleus of individual atoms extends to surrounding atoms within three or more atomic diameters. The intensity of this attractive force is proportional to the distance from the nucleus. In a solid therefore the reciprocal attractive forces of all adjacent atoms on each individual atom therefore results in a very strong combined attractive force throughout.
The repulsive forces are also very strong, as these forces also increase in intensity progressively towards the nucleus.
These very strong attractive and repulsive forces, being completely in balance, in effect lock the atoms motionless in position and produce the rigidity and inflexibility which characterises most solid elements. If we postulate that there is no ‘space’ between atoms, the force fields are compressed to the shape described above.
To achieve the change of state from a solid to the liquid, energy has to be applied or introduced. The absorption of this energy builds up the energy levels of the force fields of each atom and thereby strengthens the repulsive force enabling it to increasingly resist and progressively overcome the strong combined, collective, attractive forces of the atomic nuclei.
With continuing heat input when the melting point temperature of the solid in question is reached, an large amount of ‘latent’ heat energy is then absorbed without increasing the registered temperature of the solid, which indicates that there is strong resistance to further expansion.
The reason for this, it could be suggested, is that here at this point of expansion, the attractive force of the nucleus of each atom extends in a solid to, say, two atomic diameters from each nucleus encompassing the nuclei of all the atoms within this radius. Forcing the outer layer of atoms out of the sphere of influence of each individual atom by the repulsive forces overcoming the collective attractive forces of all these atoms requires a significant additional input of energy. Once this level of energy is reached the expansion occurs relatively rapidly and the atoms expand and move further apart to the interval of the liquid state with the influence of the attractive force encompassing, say, a single level of surrounding atoms.
Here again the atoms are again in balance at the but the attractive and the repulsive forces being weaker at the larger periphery of each atomic force field frees them from their rigid or locked association and produces the viscous but fluid state of a liquid.
A similar process occurs between the liquid and the gaseous state where an even greater amount of ‘latent’ heat is absorbed to achieve vapourisation ( some seven times that of fusion in the case of water). Here the atoms are forced into a much larger separation by an expansion of their force fields. This greater separation corresponds to a large decline in the attractive and repulsive forces at the periphery of the force fields and produces the significant reduction in viscosity of the gas state.
As stated this is a very brief outline which reflects the conclusions of the above critical analysis of Kinetic Theory. It requires development as well as serious consideration but I think it is clear that it is a sensible and logical foundation for an alternative theory of matter which, amongst other things, can very simply predict and explain the natural phenomena discussed.
Note:- This is a copy of a paper issued online on 28 February 1998