[ABOVE: the Hammering Shield Atom looks amazingly similar to the Sun with its corona]
Because scientists have insisted that a unit of charge maintains its individualized character within the atom, many knots have been tied in atomic and molecular theories.
I have already discussed the unnecessary invention of protons and neutrons. These tiny chimeras are no longer required to exist within an atom once one realizes that what appears as a charged particle outside and separate from the atom, within the interior of the atom ceases to be. As I have also pointed out (at the end of the previously mentioned post), there does not exist a positive and negative electric charge; there is only one type of charge in the universe, and it is active only on the surfaces of materials. If there is an excess of charge on the surface (relative to optimal energy distribution in the atom), the element will exhibit what we today call “negative” characteristics. If there is a deficit of charge, the atom will exhibit what we call “positive” characteristics.
If I am correct, experiments should show that negative ions of elements will be wider (very slightly) than positive ions [for present purposes, I’m accepting the existence of the not-quite-100 “elements” as science has enumerated them].
If a material is too thickly coated with charge, it will try to unload some of it. If it is too thinly coated, it will try to acquire more. Typically, charge will not move off the surface of the atom and into space. My guess is that it must be energetically favorable for an atom to maintain even a slight overabundance of charge than to use-up energy jettisoning it (although I shame myself by using the “energetically favorable” handwaving, fallback argument of physicists who can come up with no better explanation than this catch-all excuse). For this reason, the charge will stay circulating about the surface of the atom until the atom finds conditions energetically favorable for a transfer of charge from its surface to the surface of some other material. I’m guessing that in some way, two materials, together, can bridge the energy gap necessary to transfer/receive excess charge.
Sometimes, however, a material CAN be made to jettison some of its charge straight into space… such as, say, when an atom is bombarded with little bundles of energy called “photons.” For reasons I do not yet understand, charge flows only along surfaces. Therefore any jettisoned charge which still manages to exist as charge must curl-up upon itself and form a tiny sphere. The smallest sphere possible for the maintenance of charge appears to be what is now commonly termed an “electron.”
My suspicion at the moment is that radiated charge which cannot bundle-up into a sphere and thus retain its integrity will be radiated as heat or pure energy.
If we irradiate a material (a set of associated atoms) with light, we may be able to induce an electric current in the material. This current occurs when the energy of the incoming light boosts the circulating surface-energy of an atom to such a high level that the atom can no longer maintain it, and some of this excess surface-energy is released.
If the released energy maintains its integrity, it will form a tiny sphere of charge which will skate across the other atoms in the material looking for a new home. In a copper wire, this welcoming home might not occur for miles! This is electricity.
Some of the thusly jettisoned charges will find homes along the way in atoms in the wire or in atoms of the air which are willing to accept the energy-boost offered by the charge. Thus, electricity running down a wire dissipates. Furthermore, since not all the jettisoned energies of all the atoms affected will be able to maintain integrity, heat or light will also be simultaneously generated.
Let us look at a semi-conductor scenario. The currently accepted “electron shells” theory of atoms is not really so off-the-mark. In the electron shells theory, different elements are differently receptive to charge depending on how much charge they already have. Some elements are content with the amount of charge they contain (nobles), whereas others crave a bit more energy, and still others would feel better getting rid of a little excess energy.
This sounds very much like my own theory, except that in the electron shells theory, charge is said to be contained in, and only in, very tiny particles called “electrons.” These electrons are believed to revolve, in rings or shells, about something called a “nucleus.” Each shell holds only so many electrons. The more electrons in an atom, the more shells necessary.
Interestingly, even in the electron shells theory, only the charge at the surface of the atom matters — at least when it comes to interacting with other atoms or phenomena. Under the shell theory, this surface is represented as the outermost electron “shell.” If the outer-shell is almost carrying its maximum capacity of “electrons,” it will want to “complete” its shell by acquiring more electrons. If the outer-shell is almost empty, then the atom will want to get rid of these outermost electrons altogether, so that the full shell of electrons beneath can become the outermost shell. If I remember correctly, the atoms with outer-shells which are more-or-less half filled with their quota of electrons will tend to look for similarly outer-shelled electrons to share energy with so that they both can have fuller outer-shells.
According to the shell theory, atoms don’t just simply acquire or lose free electrons to fill their outer-shell because there is purported to reside in the “nucleus” some positively charged particles called “protons.” Every proton carries an equal and opposite charge to every electron. Since atoms are typically charge-neutral, it is assumed that regular atoms contain and equal amount of protons and electrons, and that to alter one of these numbers would cause the atom to become electrically out-of-balance. Thus, an atom cannot simply snag more isolated electrons to fill its outershell because it doesn’t contain enough protons in its nucleus to hold them (it is assumed that “positive” charge is attracted to “negative” charge– though I have absolutely no idea why this is assumed, and if actually true, it seems like it could make electric currents “sticky.” But that’s what is contended.
I have to say, I’ve always found it extremely odd and suspiciously non-logical that atoms would be drawn together to make molecules, even due to dire energy needs. For one thing, the joining point would occur at precisely the location where each atom’s fast-moving cloud of negative charges would collide with each other, full of energy and mutual repulsion. Furthermore, the positively charged protons supposedly at the heart of each atom can’t be all that happy to be in such close proximity to other protons– especially since the (ridiculous) proton-glue known as the Strong force has been forbidden to act between atoms. The excuse offered to overcome the mutual repulsions of protons is that the electrons of the system shield each nucleus from the other nuclei. However, I remain unconvinced that negative charges which aren’t even strong enough to repel each other would act as that great of a shield for the positive charges behind them. I’m not even really sure by what theory something– anything– is supposed to act as a barrier between proton-forces at all.
There’s also another built-in antagonism in the electron shell theory of atoms. There is what the atom is supposed to crave ENERGETICALLY, and what the atom is supposed to crave ELECTRICALLY. Whatever number of electrons the outershell contains will be because that number is exactly how many more electrons it needs after all its inner-shells have been filled in order to balance the number of protons in the nucleus. The atom, ELECTRICALLY, is thus perfectly balanced and content.
However, ENERGETICALLY, theorists tell us, the atom with an unfilled outershell will still crave more electrons because it doesn’t “like” unfilled outer-shells, and so it will attempt to combine with other atoms with less-than-full outershells. (No wonder the world is so insane if such schizophrenia exists at the Universe’s near-fundamental level ! ).
Under the One Circulating Charge Theory, there are no shells of electrons beneath the outer-shell, and there is no hive of positive charges at the center. There is only the atom, with its circulating surface energy, which presents itself as charge. Atoms are attracted to each other under the One Circulating Charge Theory depending on their energy needs. When molecules are formed by combining atoms, the atoms have combined because it turns out that the optimum amount of additional energy needed by ALL the combining atoms can be best acquired by joining with other atoms. When multiple atoms combine, their surface energies flow over ALL of them, averaging-out into a level of energy of optimum for both.