Exoplanets statistics and Big Bang, covalent bond and electrode potential
The discovery of exoplanets around stars is a hot topic in astronomy. Have someone ever made a simple statistics how many alien solar systems should be found based on the Big Bang theory prediction?
Admitting that a supernova pop un in our galaxy twice a century, and supposing that a single supernova generates other ten stars and subsequently ten alien solar systems – which is more than exaggerated-, only a tiny 1% of stars in our galaxy should have its own solar system.
The Kepler telescope brings supplementary evidence that depart the experimental reality from theoretical prediction. As far the field of view of Kepler is a cone toward constellations Lyra and Cygnus, and this field extends for 3000 Ly, in order to explain the number and distribution of observed exoplanets, someone should have been planted a supernova at every 20 Ly for this entire distance (3000 Ly). A simple question should be answered though… What is happen if the Kepler telescope is turn at 180 degree or it is orientated in any other direction?
The Big Bang theory fails to explain even other more restrictive statistics. Red dwarf which are the most common stars in our galaxy (75-80% of total), and have a life time greater than our universe should have fewer solar systems around them by comparison with Sun like stars. Most of the red dwarfs are still toddlers and few of them have been formed from supernova explosions. How is possible to have around such red dwarf stars billions of solar systems?
The last topic in astronomy is an analysis of a video presentation of dr. John Mulchaey, from Carnegie Observatory, entitled ,,The multiwavelength Universe” about NGC 2276 and pulses in radio domain without any apparent source.
This newsletter is going to present only two items which are of paramount importance and form the core of chemistry as science.
A cornerstone for the quantum mechanic and for the entire chemistry is represented by the proposed model for chemical bonds formation. Even before the quantum theory epoch, it has been accepted that covalent bonds are formed as a result of the sharing of one or more electrons between atoms. There has not been a conceptual explanation, how the electrons involved in the chemical bound are moving around or between atoms. As usual, quantum mechanic, in its variants, Valence theory and Orbital Molecular theory, predict a certain probability for electrons to be in certain region of space, without any intuitive or logical explanation.
In the new proposed model, a covalent bound is formed as result of coupling between electron magnetic moments. Of course electron magnetic moments are represented by continous functions in the new theory and not by operators. No sharing of electrons is allowed and each nucleus maintains control and ownership even for electron(s) involved in chemical bond(s); there is no increased density of electrons in the space between atoms participating at bound formation too. Quantum mechanic is ruled out and an analogy with an interaction between two macroscopic magnetic moments can be made. This kind of magnetic moments interaction is able to explain in a consistent way the covalent bound and even other types of bounds formation.
Figure 1. Covalent bond formation for hydrogen molecule
The spatial orientation of these magnetic moments can also explain the orientation of formed covalent bounds in space. The text is not updated because first a new theory of magneticity (former electromagnetism) is necessary. The estimation made in the newsletter is based on actual electromagnetism, and therefore for the the future, the model will be preserved but the mathematical approach could suffer adjustments.
No experiment was ever performed in order to investigate how and why an electrode potential appears when a metal is immersed into a solution of its salt. For this task, stable or radioactive isotopes can help elucidating this problem and an simple experiment was proposed and performed. Other more sophisticated experiments are planned.
A radioactive enriched Zr metal electrode was dipped into a non radioactive salt of Zr(NO3)2 and the radioactivity of the solution was measured at certain times intervals. Before electrode immersion the radioactivity of the solutions was checked in order to avoid a false positive error. After that the measurements of solution radioactivity were performed four times in the first day (once after six hours), once in a day for an entire month and once a week for another 4 months.
Figure 2 Isotopic experiment
Having a metal electrode dipped into a solution that contains ions of that metal, a potential difference between the metal and the solution appears according to actual interpretation.
Consequently, when the metal strip contain only one isotope (radioisotope) or is enriched in such radioactive isotope and the solution of its salt contain another isotope, after a period of time there will be a process of isotopic change between metal and solution.
Actual orthodox theory admits as real this isotopic change between metal and its salt solution but the experimental results contradicts this supposition.
In proposed theory there will be no isotopic change between metal and its solution.
A new perspective is offered in proposed theory for the specific comportment of a metal and its salt solution component.
When no reaction takes place between metal strip and solvent (usually water), no isotopic change takes place at the interface solid solution.
When metal piece react with solvent (water), there is a mass transfer between metal piece and solution, so the isotopic pattern of solution is changed. But there is no change of isotopic pattern for remaining metal part, because no metals atoms are deposited back on the metal piece.
This simple experiment rule out the accepted interpretation for the electrode potential and a new explanation is necessary.
The link where the entire newsletter is available for read or download as pdf:
Best regards,
dr. chem. Sorin Cosofret
No comments:
Post a Comment