Shape of Atom Equals Process of Universe?
Copyright 2009, John Manimas Medeiros
What is meant by the ancient saying "Proportion is everything?"
If atoms are spheres, then much of our current -- mostly twentieth century -- physics is likely to be meaningful and reasonably correct. However, if atoms are polyhedrons, then the universe is fundamentally and dramatically different from what physicists describe. Why? Because the current version of the real, physical universe is based on a spherical atom, an atom that is shaped like a steel ball bearing or a glass marble, perfectly spherical, and which does what it does, including attaching or "bonding" to other atoms and forming molecular bonds, all in accordance with a complex and somewhat mysterious system of electron arrangements and forces that are usually grouped together as belonging to the phenomenon of "quantum mechanics." This is fine, but it is all based on the fundamental conclusion that the atom is a sphere, or an object that is comprised at least in part of circulating electrons or "probability waves" and electrons whose movements are so difficult to know with certainty that we cannot possibly know -- using the instruments we have thus far -- where they are at the same time that we know what they are doing.
I am offering a constructive criticism of physics here that is intended to be helpful. Physicists will assume that since I do not possess a degree in physics and do not practice physics as it is accepted today, I must know nothing of value. However, I know this much: if atoms are spheres, then they present a conflict with the primary pattern of Nature. The primary pattern of Nature is simplicity. And what that simplicity means is that if something that is either "invented" by Nature or "discovered" by Nature works well enough, then Nature does not invent an alternative that does the same thing. With certainty, if Nature possesses a simple process for accomplishing something, it never invents a more complex process to do what can be done more simply. Therefore, if atoms are spheres, and they comprise the fundamental substance of physical matter, or the smallest particle of matter (an element with specific characteristics), then why do we find a crystalline and or polygonal or polyhedral structure in virtually all molecules and compounds? Stated differently, why do models of molecules look like a child's construction toy employing "spheres" that are connected to one another by "sticks" that represent the "forces" holding the spherical atoms together? If the sphere is good, why invent polyhedrons? Why invent all of the polyhedral forms found in minerals, plants and the organic molecules that we find in all living things?
Here is the essence of the question. If you were told you were going to be given two objects and you had to devise a way to attach them firmly, hold them together so that it was very difficult to move their connecting point, or break their connecting point, would you choose two boards, or two blocks, or two glass marbles? Or two steel ball bearings? You would not choose the hard spheres because spheres are the most difficult forms to attach to one another. In fact, spheres possess the smallest possible contact surface when they touch one another. This property is very important and it is the property that is the basis for using "ball bearings" as the contact between an axle and a wheel hub. The ball bearings, even many ball bearings, possess such a small area of surface contact, and easily lubricated, so that a wheel can turn for thousands of miles and generate a low level of heat and such a low level of friction that the ball bearings do not need to be replaced after the wheel has turned millions of times.
Therefore, if two hard spheres are the most difficult objects to attach to one another, or form a "bond," then why did Nature choose to make the fundamental building block of matter not a building block but a "building sphere"? And then, after making the fundamental piece of matter a sphere, all other pieces of (molecular) matter thereafter are very rarely spheres, but are nearly always polyhedrons. How could this be true? The abundance of polyhedral shapes in organic molecules and in minerals suggests strongly that polyhedral shapes are very useful and productive in the real, physical world. This being the case, why and how would Nature begin with spheres?
So, the real question I present here, to physicists and to an interested public, is: Has the possible polyhedral shape of atoms really been ruled out by any convincing experimental model and an acceptable scientific method? My position is that this is not the case -- the possibility of a polyhedral atom has not been effectively ruled out. And it MUST be ruled out convincingly if we are to understand Nature as it really is. And we must understand Nature as it really is in order to avoid killing ourselves. If atoms are polyhedrons, which I believe to be true, then the means for their attachment to one another is different from what is accepted by current science. This is not a small matter. It is the biggest of all matters. We must design an experiment that either rules out the polyhedral atom or rules out the spherical atom. Our survival depends on addressing this question.
Link to: (Welcome) or (JMDM 2009)