An introduction to the em-model

2 Structuring elements

22.3.04 Erling Skaar

In the previous document we have presented the two fundamental particles (electrons and protons) and the two fundamental forces in nature (electric and magnetic force). We also saw that a universe filled with hydrogen gas is a probably first step toward the universe we know today.

Example from the web:

Elements like hydrogen and helium first formed in the Big Bang.

These grouped together to form stars where some of the heavier elements are formed. At first they convert hydrogen atoms to helium - which gives off a lot of energy. Then they start converting the helium to carbon. This process carries on through the periodic table until you reach iron. Here the process stops because to convert iron to the next in the series takes more energy than you get out at the other end.

There are other processes in stars called s-processes (s for slow). Some reactions produce neutrons which are captured one by one by other nuclei, increasing their weight. Once a neutron has been captured it may change into a proton. The s-process can make elements up to bismuth in the periodic table.

Stars can explode as super nova. In this case there is a flood of neutrons that are absorbed by existing nuclei several at a time. This is known as the r-process (r for rapid). This makes elements as heavy as uranium.

http://www.sciencenet.org.uk/database/
chem/elemental/c00099d.html

Our universe is  filled with about 100 different basic elements and not only hydrogen, as in the first universe. The main goal for this document is to look into the problems the creator faced when he had to make other elements based on the hydrogen gas that filled the first universe.

Common cosmological models
In common cosmological literature we can read that gas clouds where gravitationally attracted to each other, formed big stars, which then later exploded (supernova), and the high energy concentration is these explosions then made the different elements we have today. The frames in this document contains some quotations from some web-site which represent a common view among scientists. There are many scientific problems connected to these explanations and we will highlight some of them alongside the following alternative history.

Is it possible to make gold from other substances?

From a question-answer website:

By adding protons to the atom chemists can theoretically turning lighter gold atoms with 79 protons into heavier lead atoms with 82 protons. However, in practice, converting gold into lead takes a lot of energy and so costs more than the value of the lead actually made.

The reverse process of converting heavier lead atoms into lighter gold atoms is also possible. In practice however, tampering with elements at an atomic level is more likely to produce dangerous unstable atoms of a new element, rather than sparkling gold.

http://www.sciencenet.org.uk/database/chem/
elemental/c00099d.html

Because the element gold is more valuable than for example lead, some people have tried to make gold from other substances. Although it has been proven that it is possible to make gold in very small amount in laboratories, we can conclude that nobody have been rich by creating gold. In common cosmological textbooks we learn that most of the elements in the periodic table where formed when big stars formed and later exploded.

From experiments in laboratories we know that we can make new chemical materials by raising the temperature and the pressure in an area. Coal and oil may for example be made from organic material in this way. We have not experienced a massive forming of new atomic elements in laboratories, but if we have to say something about how the elements in our universe may have been formed out of the helium gas that filled the first universe, it is probable that high temperature and high pressure is needed. The only place we probably find these conditions in our universe is inside stars and if we need more extreme values, it is always possible to just assume that these elements have been created when stars have exploded (super nova has been observed from time to time). But there are no scientific evidence that shows that new elements is forming inside stars or supernovas today. The main reason for thinking that elements can form inside stars is the idea that every element have been formed naturally inside our universe after Big Bang and not by an external creator. If this assumption is right there just have to be a transformation process from hydrogen to the elements we know today that works in our universe. Since we do not observe this process in our universe today, it must have happened a place we cannot observe it, and that is most likely inside stars.

Is everything possible in nature, or is there some limits?
Instead of arguing against common cosmological models, we will here just try to describe some main features with the elements we have in our universe and also mention where there are scientific difficulties to assume that the different processes have happened in nature all by them selves. In these cases we think that it is more honest to mention a creator than just pretend that those processes may work in the nature although there are no scientific experiments that support that view. The point here is that there normally have to be a sort of procedure and experimental equipment behind an experiment. When these things are absent, the process will not happen. In normal scientific experiments, man are the creator behind the procedure and the experimental equipment. We know that man did not create the elements in the universe, but that did not prove that there where no creator that did these apparently impossible things. Man can make a car, but nature can not make a care just by itself. It is impossible. In general we can say that both God and man is partly outside the nature because we use something that we can call intelligence to create thing in nature. The nature would not have managed to make it just by itself. Some people may disagree on this, and say that everything in nature may have a natural explanation. This is a faith statement that they may feel comfortable with, but some people just wants to see some evidence before they accept that sort of statement, and it is our hope that those people may find some interesting in this text. Those that believe that Big Bang is a fact and all elements can be formed in nature, are probably not so open minded that they will accept the arguments in this document and may be they should not bother reading the rest of the document.

Fundamental particles

There are many elements in our universe and it is not possible to give a full comment on all features in these elements in a short presentation. Here we will just give a general presentation based on some basic principle in the EM-model. The EM-model that is presented here is rather new, and therefore there may be something in this presentation that need correction. But instead of waiting till everything is checked in every way, we just present some moments . We will also encourage those that find something in this text that have to be wrong, to join in this effort to understand the nature based on an electromagnetic model. Some minor problems in these texts is not a valid reason for throwing away the whole EM-model. People have been adjusting the QM-model for a period of around 100 years to make it fit physical observations, and it would be wise to spend some time trying to adjust the EM-model to the real world before concluding that it is wrong.

As mentioned in the first document, there are only two fundamental particles according to the EM-model, the negative electrons and the positive protons. But these particles may have different energy and therefore also different mass. Note here that mass is not a fundamental property according to the EM-model. More about that in a more complete presentation of how we explain mechanics according to this model. Here we will just say that Einstein equation: E=mc says that mass and energy is two connected properties. The EM-model goes a little further and says that mass or energy is in most cases a matter of more or less magnetic energy.

Stable and unstable fundamental particles

Before we present the connection between the fundamental particles according to modern physics / quantum mechanics (Quantum Mechanics=QM) and those we have in the EM-model, we will just say that concept stable may be interpreted in different ways. In the first universe we will say that only the hydrogen molecule is stable. That means that those structures may exist in a natural environment without any spontaneous fision/splitting or fusion/combination (in) to other structures. This definition may work on either models.

When the concept stable is used on fundamental particles it normally means that unstable particles will disappear sooner or later. It is important to note that it is not logically to use the concept stable connected to the elementary particles in the EM-model because both the fundamental particles are stable and there are therefore no need for that concept.  Both electrons and protons are stable in the meaning that they will never transform into other particles, but at the same time they may have different energies. On the other hand they may be regarded as unstable as a single structure because they will spontaneously combine with other particles or structure in a natural environment.

Particles

Charge
e=1,6010-19C

Rest mass
u=1,6610-27kg

Lifetime
seconds

Electron

-1

0.000549

stable

Proton

+1

1.007277

stable

Neutron

0

1.008665

1000

Positron

+1

0.0000549

stable

Muon

-1 or +1

0.114

2.210-6

Tau

-1 or +1

1.92

2,310-12

According to the QM-model there are many fundamental particles and some of them are shown int the table to the left. In the table, there are three particles said to be stable, namely: electrons,  protons and positrons. The latter is not stable in a normal environment, so that the meaning of stable her have to be a more theoretical one that says that they are stable if they are in the right environment. All the other particle is unstable, meaning that they will disappear sooner or later. When that happens other particles are then created. Here we will just say that this "unstable nature" consisting of fundamental particles that are created and disappears all the time is not  easy to understand. The nature is more predictable according to the EM-model. Therefore we will not talk about unstable particles excepts when we have to quote from common literature.

According to the EM-model there are only two fundamental particles. This means that all particles in the QM-model with positive charge is protons and all particles with negative charge is electrons. A particle that have a rest mass and no charge (example: Neutron) then have to be a composition of a proton and an electron. According to the EM-model the neutron is therefore a structure in the same way as hydrogen atoms and helium ions are structures. To understand the EM-model it is important to remember that the neutron is not a fundamental particle as in the QM-model.

A main problem when comparing the EM-model with the common QM-model of the fundamental particles is due to the fact that the QM-model have been the accepted model for a rather long time. The concepts and language is often based on the QM-model and it is not easy to both absorb a total new model at the same time as the new model puts other meaning into the words that are used. Before we get back to the periodic table of the elements, it is necessary to say something about some of the basic elements in the QM-model.

Neutron is not a fundamental particle - but two


C-14 is a radioactive isotope which can be used to measure how long ago a tree was cut down. From time to time there will come an electron from a C-14-atom and at the same time it transforms to a N-13 isotope. The opposite may happen when an fast electron hit a N-13 isotope.

Her we will first argue for the view that neutron is not a basic particle by mention an example from nature: We know that the isotope C-14 (Carbon) is present in our atmosphere (as CO2) and that this isotope is unstable with a half-life of 5730 year. That means that there is a possibility that a C-14-atom may be transformed to a N-13 isotope (Nitrogen) and when doing that it radiate a beta-particle. A beta-particle is a  electron, but because they have rather high velocity, it may be dangerous and therefore we call them beta-radiation which is on of three main radioactive radiations. The other is alpha- and gamma-radiation.  

Up in the atmosphere where there are many electrons with high velocity the opposite process may occur. An electron may collide with a N-13 and the result may be a C-14 isotope. That is a fact and not a matter of discussion. But how do the two models describe these processes. The difference between C-14 and N-13 is that C-14 has a neutron in the nucleus where the N-13 have a proton according to the QM-model. That means that a neutron disappear and a proton and an electron are created when the radioactive C-14 isotope disintegrates. In the opposite process a fast electron penetrates into the nucleus of a N-13 atom and a proton disappears and a neutron is created. Is it pedagogical wise to talk about creation of fundamental particles in such situations which happens all the time? According to the EM-model it is just a matter of an electron that enters and leaves a nucleus and that is much easier to understand. According to the QM-model there are no electrons in the nucleus, and therefore they have to assume that elementary particles are created and disappears.

Ockham's Razor is the principle proposed by William of Ockham in the fourteenth century: ``entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily''. In short we can say that it the simplest explanation or model is the best. It is in connection where we have more than one competing theory which describe the same phenomena, that this principle is useful.

According to Ockham's razor, it is not a good thing to make a description more complicated than it have to be, unless you just want to create confusion to avoid questions that may reveal weaknesses in a theory. Here we will just conclude that a neutron may be considered being an electron and a proton. Later we will mention what makes a neutron different form a hydrogen atom that also consist of a proton and a electron. But here we will just conclude that it is primarily a matter of useful concepts and not a matter of scientific evidence, when we here discuss if a neutron is created from a stable electron and proton when a N-13 transform to a C-14.


http://www.fnal.gov/projects/history/internal_target.html
A photo of a Bubble Chamber. A proton with high speed have entered the Chamber from left. A collision produced tracks from ten visible fragments.

Positron -  a proton with no spinn?

Before we comments on positrons which is a sort of exotic particle that don't exist in nature, it is important to know the principle of how scientists have discovered the many atomic particles that we find in different tables. Those in the table above is only some of them. The picture on the right shows tracks of fragments from a collision in a chamber with a homogeneous magnetic or electric field. Positive charged fragments will then be deflected in one direction and negative charged fragments in the other direction. Velocity and mass will then determine the slope of the curve, and from the curves it is then possible to calculate back and find the charge and mass of the fragments.

In these sort of experiments there have been observation of positive charges with a mass like an electron, and they have got the name positron. According to the EM-model, it is the spin of the particle that determine the mass, and it is therefore no problem to assume that a proton may lose all its spin and get a mass like an free electron. The problem for that positron is that it will be attracted to a near by electron and because none of them have an initial spin which can cause magnetic repel, they will rapidly disappear. Here we will just conclude that we do not find positrons in nature and those that have been produced in particle-accelerators are not stable in our universe because of the many electrons it can meet. A table that says that positrons  is stable is therefore based on a theoretical basic and not practical observations.

Muon and Tau - just protons and electrons with other spinn?

In the table above we have included Muon and Tau as example of charged particles that may be positive and negative, but have different masses from ordinary protons and electrons. As mentioned above, protons and electrons may have every value of spin seen from a theoretical point of view. The fact that we don't find particles with all masses (all spins) in nature, may at first look like an argument against the EM-model. But according to the EM-model it is not expected that the particles will get all values of spin. It is not a easy task to show that, and here we will just make some short statements connected to this problem. A general point is that we are used to think mechanically. The QM-model is one example how one have tried to understand nature based on mechanical concepts. Note that the basic for modern physics is called quantum mechanics. The EM-model on the other hand is not based on a mechanical fundament, but a electromagnetic fundament, and in this "new world" concepts as mass,  friction and other do not exist. We us them in normal life, an also in this document, because they is an important part of our language, but if we shall explain what is behind those concepts, we have to use other words to make a consistent theory.  

Some basic assumption in the EM-model:

Energy a common concept in both a electromagnetic and a mechanical world view and here follows some basic assumptions connected to that concept.

1 There are two sorts of energy, a static one that is connected to the electric field (potensial energy) and a dynamical one that is connected to the magnetic fields which is relative movement of electric field (kinetic energy). Here we will call the first electric energy and the second magnetic energy in stead of potential energy and kinetic energy as common in a mechanical world. The magnetic energy can also be divided into two different forms, one connected to spinning charges (that turns around its own axis) and one connected to charges that moves in space (in one direction). The first may be called spin energy and the second may be called velocity energy.

2 We will first assume that there are no friction connected to moving electric fields and that means conservation of energy in all movements of charges in the universe. Protons that was initialised with spin at the time of creation, will then keep spinning forever if noting happens. When the electrons then started to move toward a proton we can talk about a loss of electric energy that turns into velocity energy and the result when the electron stops near the proton is spin energy. We then assume that the total energy is conserved in this sort of processes and therefore we would expect that elements with the same number of particles would have the same amount of energy connected to them.

3 Observations shows that when electrons falls into atoms we will experience an electromagnetic radiation out from the structure. That means a loss of energy from the structure and here we will just mention that the EM-model is not dependent on a total conservation of energy as standard mechanical models seems to. In general we can then say that the energy connected to the nucleus of the elements is huge, compared to the energy connected to oscillating electron and binding electrons in chemical compounds. An example: If we burn wood (carbohydrates) there is a chemical reaction which release heat energy. According to the EM-model and also modern physics (E=mc) there should be a loss of mass in the sum of components that is involved from before to after the process. The mass will decrease when energy go out as electromagnetic waves. In practical situations it is only possible to measure that sort of weight loss in atomic processes and not in chemical processes. The reason is a huge gap between chemical and atomic energies. It is possible and also probable, according to the EM-model, that there may be some small energy losses every time we get radiation from components that have captured an electron.

According to QM-model energy in radiation are quantified and all the energy is restored when the photon is absorbed by another component. This means that people who believe in the QM-model have problem in accepting that there is a  loss of energy when we for example experience negative interference between two beams of light.  Those that believe in the EM-model seem to be more open minded. As long as nobody have given a logical explanation of how energy may be conserved in for example laser experiments where we experience destructive interference, they accepts that there may be a small loss of energy in our universe. But if there is a sort of "running down mechanism" in the universe, it have to be very slow and therefore hard to measure directly.

Why do we not find particles with all possible spin values?

   
According to the em-model a Muon is a electron (or proton) with a size between a free electron and a proton. The reason is the spinn energy that have a level between the normal spinn of a electron and a proton.

The QM-model is based on common observations that show that we often find discrete energy levels in nature. The way the QM-model explains that is just to assume that separate energy levels are the fundamental property in nature. Therefore it is not possible to explain this property based on a more fundamental principle. It may seem a little unfair that those who believe in the QM-model don't have to explain the discrete energy levels, because it is the basic assumption, but other have to. According to the EM-model the main reason for observing just some discrete particle energies (masses) like Muons (electrons and protons according to the EM-model) coming out of an collision is of cause that all particles in the structures have special positions where they are stable. In general we experience that most of the particle in a structure is so stable that they do not come out, but some have a special exposed position and here we assume that it is those that comes out as for example Muons after a collision.  In the table above we sees that a Muon have a mass which is about 1/10 of a proton and 200 times the mass of an electron. That means that an electron (or proton) have still much spin left when it have left the structure where it came from. But it is probably not the same spin as it had in the structure because some of the initial spin energy must have been transformed to velocity energy and electrical energy. Experiences show that Muons are not stable and according to the EM-model it will sooner or later meet some other structure and transform to for example a free electron that means it looses more of its spinn.

Another problem is to explain why structures seems to end up with the same energy levels after some recombinations. In general we will here assume that if there are a loss of energy in a recombination on atomic level, it have to be extreme small compare to the energy that are involved and it is therefore difficult to measure the energy loss. Above we have mentioned negative interference as a mechanism for energy loss, and if that is the only way energy may disappear, then we can say that practically all energy involved in a recombination  have to end up in another energy form. Over time the particles that receives or loss energy will adjust themselves to each other and end up in the normal stable energy levels.

What is the difference between a neutron and a hydrogen atom?

       
The figure shows a hydrogen atom (H-1) and a neutron(n) as they may look lik according to the em model.

In the figure to the left we se both a hydrogen atom (H-1) and a neutron (n) as they may look like according to the EM-model. Note that the scale is wrong and the proportion between the distance and the size of the particles is much higher in nature.  In both cases we have a structure composed of a proton and an electron. It is then electric force that keeps them together while it is magnetic forces that keeps them from falling into each other. According to the EM-model the size of the particles in a hydrogen atom has to be different, but the background for the sizes in the figure is graphical considerations (how to draw clear structures) and not scientific considerations.  Note also that we in the figures have placed letters that mark where there is a magnetic north pole (N) and a magnetic south pole(S). The reason for that is to make it easier to see where there are magnetic repel or attraction. In both cases here we have a repel because same poles are in the same end of the particles.

A main question that is not settled yet is the size (or mass) of the particles that forms a neutron. Here we have given them the same size, because it makes it easy to recognise neutrons in drawings. Some more studies have to be done to settle the size of the particles in neutrons, but the conclusion so long is that they have to be between the size of a normal proton and a free electron. A scientific argument for the particles in a proton being the same size is connected to Muons that seems to have same mass both when they are positive and negative. A source for electrons an protons with same mass coming out of atomic structures may be a smaller structure where those two particles have the same size. It is just a sort of guess, but also that sort of guesses may lead to some useful information.


The figure is a model of a Deuterium atom which is present in "heavy water".

The first to note about neutrons is that they are only stable in other structures and not alone. That means for example that a neutron is stable inside a Hydrogen atom (or Hydrogen molecule). That structure is called Deuterium and a possible structure of a Deuterium atom is shown to the right. Note that the poles may be titled different from what shown in the figure, but here too is it more easy to see what poles that is attracting each other and what poles that repels each other if all magnets have their axis in the same direction. As mention earlier, Hydrogen atoms are not stable and here we assume it also applies to Deuterium. Therefore two atoms will stick together and make a molecule. But in stead of trying to draw all possible structures we will her just pick up some structure that shows special important principle and leave the other to somebody that have a deeper background in the subject.

Helium and alpha particles - what do they look lik?

   
A figure that shows a possible structure for helium and its nucleus.

The next structure that should be mentioned in this introduction to atomic structures is Helium which normally is a gas and its nucleus which is often called alpha-particle. The latter seem to be more stable structure than many other atomic structures because it keeps its structure in most recombinations and comes out as stable structure when other bigger unstable elements disintegrates.

In general we can say that a helium atom is stable because it has two outer electrons rather close to each other. They therefore do not acts as unpaired electrons that attracts other unpaired electrons. Therefore Helium do not form molecules, but a single atom behave as a gas and therefore  the outer form must be similar to H2 gas which also have an electron in each end. The fact that Helium is a gas and the nucleus must be between the two outer electrons indicates that the nucleus is rather small compared to the electrons. A more complete argument follows later where we will discuss the basic conditions for being a gas.

A main problem here is to figure out the structure of the helium nucleus which is build of 6 particles, 4 protons and 2 electrons. The figure above shows one possible structure where all magnetic spins have the same direction. It seems to be the easiest way to draw a structure that may be stable because electric and magnetic forces may balance each other, but it is not easy to tell if this is the most stable structure. That is not important either. The main point her is that a structure of those 6 particles is stable exist in the nature, and here I just will encourage others to search for a better structure which can explain all known features of Helium and the alpha particle. 

What happens when more particles are put into the nucleus?

The periodic table of the elements shows that the general rule when moving from an element to the next, is two protons and 1 electrons more in the nucleus. (1 proton and on neutron according to the QM-model.) Note that we here define the nucleus to be all the atom except the outer most electrons that is involved in chemical bindings. In general there may exist other stable isotopes, but here we will just comment on this general rule by using the step from Helium (He-4) to Litium (Li-6) as an example. Helium(He) has atom number 2 and Litium (Li) has atom number 3.  

Forming new elements from hydrogen is not a natural process
In general it is not easy and  usually not possible in a laboratory to build new elements by putting new particles into the nucleus. It is definitive not a process that we can see goes on in the nature today and therefore we here assume that there have to be a creator involved in making bigger elements out of smaller elements. Some books say that this sort of process goes on inside stars today, but as long as we don't se any description of natural mechanisms that can do the job, it is most likely that this is wishful thinking and not real science. Here we then assume that the creator is the only one that can put new particles into the nucleus with the right energy. When the nature then " takes over", the nucleus will recombine and make a stable structure. Here follows some comment on some general principle connected to how the nucleus would behave according to the EM-model.

Spin from outer electrons dominate outside the atom
A main principle is that the there are more energy involved in small particles than bigger on. When a small particle transform energy to a bigger one, it became bigger, but the other particle gets smaller. Because the electric field varies as 1/d around all particles, it will in general be stronger than the magnetic field in a distance. Note also that the variation in diameter of the particles do not affect the electric field.

The magnetic field which varies as 1/d will then dominate near to the particles. But it is also important to note that the magnetic field will be affected by the diameter of the particle and a general rule is that the magnetic field from a big particle reach longer out than that from a small particle if the spin is the same. According to the EM-model, the spin increases when the particle gets smaller, but in sum we will here assume that spin from big particles reaches longer than spin from small particles. In praxis, this means that spin from outer electrons, and not protons or those electrons that are captured in the nucleus,  will dominate in the area around the atom.

The nucleus - a positive ball shaped structure
Because the structure of the nucleus is in three dimensions, it is not easy to figure out how it look like on a two dimensional paper/screen, and therefore we will just assume that there is a stable structure and we will draw it as a ball shaped formation consisting of  protons and electrons with mostly the same size. It is probable that there will be a variation in size, with the smallest particles in the middle, but it is not so easy to show this in a drawing. In general we also draw protons and electrons with the same size and one such couple may then be regarded as a neutron. In general there have to be some negative particle to make some electrical attraction and arrange the strong magnets in different directions so that the whole structure become stable although it is dominated by positive protons that naturally will repel each other. 


A litium atom (Li-6) as it may look like according to the EM-model.

From Helium (He-4) to Litium (Li-6)
As mention above, the nucleus of helium is small and stable, and forcing new particles into it would mean that the whole structure have to be rearranged probably to a bigger and less stable structure. In general it may be that it would be easier to force two helium atoms together and first make a carbon atom (C) and then pick out some particles from the nucleus to form litium (Li), but the main point here is not how the creator did it, but  what will happen naturally when for example 6 protons and 3 electrons are forced together into a nucleus.  If the creator for example started with a helium atom and forced 2 protons and 1 electron into its nucleus,  we would expect a new structure that will start to interfere with the surroundings because it would be less electric and magnetic neutralized seen from outside. A possible next step is that the two outer electrons from the helium gas will be sucked into the nucleus to form a more stable structure. The whole structure will then have one more positive charge than negative charge and therefore it will attract a new electron. At that time the "holes" in the nucleus will be filled, meaning that the nucleus have become a rather stable structure. That means that the last electron will end up as an unpaired electron with a relative weak connection to the nucleus (electric attraction). Note that Li-7 and  not Li-6 is the most common isotope, but the principle mentioned her will work for all elements.

Periodic properties according to the em-model

The periodic properties in the elements need an explanation and her follows a short description of some main features. A main reason for the periodicity of the elements is that it is possible to place at most 4 pair of electrons in a layer around a nucleus before the next electron that is added is forced further out in a new layer. It is expected that it may be shown mathematically based on a electromagnetic model, but we are not able to present it her. In stead we will just mention some basic principle according to the EM-model and just show three different drawing of how the elements may look like. The three elements are Litium, Carbon and Argon as shown in the table below.

Note that there are different isotope in most of the elements and therefore we can conclude that it is the outer electrons and not the nucleus that is the main reason for the different chemical properties. These properties is therefore determined by the number of electrons left outside of the nucleus after the outer part of the nucleus have been closed with a "neutralized coating".  This means that the charges outside the nucleus will feel a  spherical symmetrical electric field due to the dominance of positive charges in the nucleus and relative small magnetic fields from the nucleus.  It is of course properties inside the nucleus that determine the charge and as a secondary effect, the other fundamental properties with the elements. But here we will concentrate on the electrons around the nucleus and show how the EM-model can explain different chemical an physical properties whit the elements.

 

 

 

Litium is the first element in the row 2 in the periodic table. We have commented on that element before and here we will just mention that the lonely electron will have a spin that acts as a rather strong magnet which will attract another electron with same properties. We should therefore expect that Litium would form molecules (pairs of atoms), but because Litium is not a gas, it is not common to speak of Litium molecules.

When we go from Litium to Carbon, it means adding more electrons outside the nucleus parallel to a corresponding higher value of the positive charge in a slightly bigger nucleus. Carbon have four electrons outside the nucleus according to the EM-model. Because all of them have a negative charge somebody may expect that they would be placed as long as possible from each other in a tetrahedral form. That is not the case and the reason is the spin that makes each of them a magnet. Therefore they will stick together two and two and form an atom which may look something like the drawing above.

If we continue to add electrons around the nucleus and charge in the nucleus we ends up with Neon that also have a drawing above. Lines are added to make it clearer that the electron pairs make a tetrahedral form. The main roles that determines the electron structure is that magnetic properties makes them go together two and two if possible and the electric properties that tries to place the electron pairs as long as possible fro each other.

If we tries to add one more electron the structure, the electron pairs will not let another electron enter into this structure. That means that the eight electrons will be a part of a structure that interfere little with outer electrons and therefore they can be included in what we here calls the nucleus. The extra electron will start to make a new outer structure with one electron outside the nucleus. This element have the symbol Na and it have many feature common with Litium.

The octet rule

In chemistry we have an octet rule which says that  Atoms proceeds as far as possible toward achieving an octet by sharing or transferring electrons. The main reason for this rule is the same principles as we have described above. Unpaired electron attracts other unpaired electrons because of magnetic forces and it may at most be 4 pair of electrons around the different nucleus in a chemical compound.

Gas will expand while liquid and solids stick together - why?

As shown above, the chemical aspects with the elements may be explained with help of the EM-model. There are also some physical aspects connected to the different elements that need an explanation. A main question her is why some elements forms gas and other elements forms liquids or solids at normal atmospheric pressure. Although this question seems to be a fundamental question, it seems to be ignored in common literature and the reason may be that the QM-model and the kinetic theory of gases can not explain why Oxygen(O2) and Carbon dioxide(CO2) forms gasses, but Carbon do not.

The most obvious difference between gas and liquid/solids is the fact that gas will expand if there are free space around, but the others will stick together. A natural conclusion is that there are a repelling force between gas molecules, and a attracting force between liquid/solids. According to the kinetic theory of gases, there is no repelling force, but the reason for what we call gas pressure is high velocity of the gas molecules. We will not discuss the different problems that follows from that assumption, but instead show how gas pressure is explained according to the EM-model.


Two Carbon atoms will have different charge in different ends and therefore opposite charges will attract each other and Carbon therefore form solids (graphite or diamond).

At first we chose carbon as an example of those elements that don't form gas. In stead of drawing the nucleus as many particles, we here then just draw it as a sphere with red colour that means that it have a positive charge in contrast to the blue electrons that have a negative charge. The figure to the left then shows two carbon atoms. We have also marked with signs some positive and negative ends of the structure, and we would therefore expect that opposite charges will attract each other. The octet rule will then "try" to get four pairs of electrons around each nucleus, but in this case it is easier to form graphite than diamond and therefore most carbon have three pair of electrons (not four) around the nucleus.

Nitrogen is a gas
A nitrogen atom has one more electron that a Carbon atom and to the right we see how the electrons may be placed around the nucleus. Because the two pair of electrons and the unpaired electron all have negative charge they will repel each other. But because the unpaired electron is a rather strong magnet, it will attract another electron with same properties, and because of that, Nitrogen will form molecules as shown in the figure below. One pair of electron will then be placed between the two nucleus and the other will then be placed as long as possible from each other. That means that they will form a tetrahedral form as the lines indicates. The main question is the where are the positive and negative ends of this structure.

Mathematical calculation shows that this structure have only negative ends! If we calculate the sum of electric force from the positive and negative groups of particles, onto a negative electron in a distance from the structure, we will always get a repel (see example below). That means that this structure will only have negative ends or corners and it will always repel other similar structures. There are two exceptions: If the free electron gets to close there may be positions where the electrical attraction will dominate over the repel. In praxis that means that by high pressure it is possible to force a gas to transform to a liquid or solid.  If we on the other hand place the electron in infinity, the sum of attraction and repelling force will be zero.

In our simple mathematical models that we have used so long we have assumed that both nucleus and the two binding electrons is a single point charges and the same are the other electron pairs. Somebody may say that this is an over simplification that may give wrong results. Our response is that all mathematical models is based on simplifications of the real world, and the results from calculations will never be exact. A reason for using simple mathematical models is that they are easy to perform and check . The main reason for collecting many charges in few points is the fact that the nucleus according to all atom models is much smaller than the mean distance between the particles (a factor of 104) and if we assume that the electron pairs is placed halfway between the nucleus, we clearly see that the figures here have wrong proportions. That mean that if the electrons and the nucleus in the figure her should be drawn with right size compared to the distance between them, they should be like points.  

How to calculate the force between a electron and a tetrahedral structure?

The figure to the right shows a tetrahedral structure with a free electron to the left (e1) and to the right (e2). The Form/JavaScript below calculate the force between the tetrahedral structure and one of the electrons. The distances d (between the center of the tetrahedral structure and the electrons) and r (the radius from the center of the tetrahedral to the electron pairs) is measured in pm (pico-meter =10-12m) and different values may be put into the fields to the left. By pushing one of the buttons in the middle, the Form/JavaScript calculates the force between one electron and the tetrahedral structure. A main point her is to observe that the force become repulsive for most combinations of values and that means that elements and molecules with that sort of structure is a gas under normal conditions.  

d = pm      F = N
r = pm      + mean repel  - mean attraction

Comment to the calculation:
By using Coulombs law:

it is rather simple to calculate the electric force (FE) between a molecule/atom with a tetrahedral form and a free electron (e1 or e2).  In the equation d means the distance between two charges. Since a tetrahedral structure have 5 clusters of charge we have to calculate their individual distance from the free electron and sum up the forces to get the total force. In the figure d means the distance between the electron and the center of the tetrahedral structure, while r means the radius from the center to each of the electron pairs around the nucleus. The equation gives the force in N (Newton) if we use the denomination C (Coulomb) for the charge. The constant k=8,9875109Nm/C and e=1.602110-19C (the elementary charge) . Because three of the electron pairs is symmetrical positioned around the axis on the figure, we will find that their components normal to the axis will vanish and therefore we only calculate the parallel component to the axis which is the same for all and therefore we just multiply with 3 (and get 6 electrons).  The total equation is for e1 is:

The equation for F2 is similar with some signs changed.

Different structures that make elements to form gas

If we continue from Nitrogen and upward in the periodic table we get Oxygen, Fluorine and Neon which all is gas under normal conditions. The figure above shows how these molecules may look like and we see that the main structure may have 4, 5 or 6 pairs of electrons around the central part of the gas structure.

Why are hydrogen and helium gas?

Why are hydrogen and helium gas, while Litium that have the same number of electrons, are not?

  

        

In the figures above we show how the first three elements in the periodic table may look like, both in the blue-yellow particle model and the blue-red electron-nucleus model. It is obvious that Litium are not a gas either as atoms or as molecules. The reason is positive and negative ends in the structure. A main point in all the drawings of hydrogen and helium is that the nucleus is smaller than the electrons. That means that the positive nucleus may experience a sort of hiding behind the negative field from the electrons. Note that the electric force that varies as1/d tells that it is what is nearest that will result in the strongest electric field. From every side of the structure a free electron will experience that negative charge is most close and therefore the repel from these charge will dominate over the attraction from positive parts that are a little longer away. This means that the size of the nucleus in the drawing of carbon to neon earlier in this document, probably is to big compared to the size of the electrons. The drawings are made in different periods of the study of the EM-model and in stead of adjusting the figures now, it is better to wait until a complete model with values for the different sizes is developed. It is my hope that somebody that reads this may want to go into a mathematically model of the elements according to this EM-model and from that work find some real values for size and spin of the particles.

The second day

1:6

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

1:7

And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

A main idea behind this presentation of the EM-model is to introduce basic elements in the universe before the more complicated elements that explains life on earth. The first document was about the fundamental particles in the universe and this chapter is about how the elements may have been formed. A main inspiration for this work have been the creation story in the Bible and here we will just sum up this document with a comment of what happened the second day of the creation according to the Bible. See the frame to the right. If we assume that the universe started with mainly hydrogen gas, as mentioned in the first document, we face two main problems when we shall try to explain how the elements have been formed.

1 Hydrogen is a gas which will expand and not concentrate in to stars. The gravitational force, that common literature says have resulted in a clumping together into stars, are far to weak to overcome the gas pressure which may regarded as a force with opposite direction. A conclusion is therefore that we know of no force in nature that may form the first stars out of hydrogen and therefore an honest scientist should admit that help from a creator seems necessary.

2 To form new and bigger elements from smaller elements when Hydrogen is the starting point is not a normal process that we find in nature today. Experiments in laboratories shows that very high values of energy in very small area are needed to make new elements in the lower part of the table. But it is not enough with much energy. Too much energy normally ruins a process where the goal is to build something that are not a natural product in a common process. Man have some experiences in building chemical structures. A main problem in these processes is to position the right elements at the right place to the right time and that sort of processes normally needs an intelligent person which is able to make necessary equipment and perform the process. It may therefore seem a little arrogant when we hear that people that have no experience with making the common elements, claiming that those processes may happen in the center of big stars without any sort of help from a creator. Our conclusion here is that the most important learning from scientific experiments is that something in nature do not happens by itself if we just supply enough energy. We do not expect a car coming out of an explosion in a car factory.  Therefore there have to be a creator behind the forming of the elements.

It is also interesting to see that processes connected to these main problems which are mentioned her, is also mentioned in the Bible when the second day is described. At first we will just say that word "water", probably is used as a general word for the first homogenous matter (Hydrogen) as mentioned in the first document. The main message from the Bible text seems to be that the creator interfered with the result from the first creation day on the following day. "Divide" is her a main concept and it may mean that he divided the matter into different elements so that some sank down (solids and liquid) and some formed a firmament which we here interpret as the atmosphere which then where filled with gasses. A possible interpretation of the water above the firmament is that the creator did not do anything there at that second day. It is recorded that he formed the sun and moon on the forth day and it is therefore probable that he formed the outer universe later. That may for example explain why the earth is not so hot as most of the big heavenly bodies are today. The earth have got more time (and external help) to cool down.

The main conclusion here is then that the problem to collect matter to a ball shaped structure (our earth) with enough mass to make a gravitational field had to be done by a external creator. Also the division of mater into different elements cannot happen without help from outside nature. Is it a coincidence that the editor of the Bible seems to be aware of these two main problems, but most science literature seems to ignore them?