ELECTRIC
IONIZATION
1. Introduction R. W. Satz discusses (i) In figs I and II, the direction of the arrow head on the outermost of the three circles should be reversed. (ii) Table I, p. 22: in the column for “c/v (iii) p. 29, 8th line from bottom: “(R/2p)”
must be there in piace of “(2R/p).”
(Note that it is mentioned in the text, in the line above it, that the
cosmic neutrino rotation takes an inverse charge.) Only then does the
combined energy add up to h * (2R/p) * (B/B (iv) Table II, p. 32: In the column for “Displacement,”
for the isotope The theory of the electric ionization and magnetization developed in Refs. 1 and 2 leaves certain unresolved difficulties: ^{(3)}
This is equivalent to nearly 41850 eV. How such a mass effect of 41850
eV is produced from an electric charge that came into being from an energy
of 8.68 eV is not clear. Similarly, it can be seen that the energy associated
with the unit isotopic charge is 2.17 eV since its rotational frequency
is R/2p (p. 8, Ref. 1). It is once again not
clear how this can compare with the mass effect of an isotopic charge,
namely, 931.3 MeV. Further, I have shown^{(4)}
that , following Larson’s line of argument, a unit magnetic charge
gives rise to a negative mass effect equivalent to -243.19 eV, which also
contrasts with the energy required to create a magnetic charge, namely,
2.17 eV as derived by Satz.
2. Equation for the Ionization Energy We will now attempt a refmement of the electrical ionization
theory developed by Satz We find that the best way to get an insight into the situation
is to consider the ionization energies, E
It can be noted from the observational data that as the displacement in the magnetic dimension increases, there is a systematic decrease in the ionization energy. On the other hand, the value calculated by Satz (his Table I, Ref. 2) is the same, 4.34 eV, for all of these elements. From this it is apparent that there ought to be some missing factor that accounts for this discrepancy. This factor, whose existence has not been recognized hitherto, is what might be called the transverse effect of the rotations in the two dimensions other than the one considered in the Satz eq. 9a (p. 25, Ref. 2):
That is to say, if u and v are the two magnetic speeds and w the electric speed, and if the ionization energy happens to be given by
the speeds v and w in the orthogonal dimensions do have
a transverse effect on E
then the speeds u and v exert the transverse effect. Secondly, since speeds in two different dimensions are simultaneously
involved in the transverse effect, their net effect can be calculated
by talang their geometric mean.
That is, it is equivalent to the force effect of a rotation
(t Finally, the square-root of the expressions is to be taken in order to convert the time region quantity into the time-space region quantity. Thus the factor responsible for the transverse effect can be written down as
where v
3. Observational Validation In Table I are listed the values of E The agieement with the observational values can be seen to improve very materially compared with that achieved by the Satz equation. (The correlation coefficient is 0.992.) There are several aspects to the computation:
^{(4)} that
the “^{½}-_{½}” type
of effective displacement in both the magnetic dimensions of these particles
is what makes the acquirement of an electric charge impossibie. 3.2 Hydrogen. One of the two intermediate type of particles,
H
Since the speeds in the two rotating systems in the primary
magnetic dimensions are unequal, their geometric means, ( E
^{(8)}
Now for the purpose of talang on the electric charge the rotation in the
electric dimension of the inert gases is able to assume the role of this
alternative zero-point. We shall refer to this phenomenon by the term
“zero-shifting.”Both He and Ne, with their smaller atomic numbers (net total electric displacement), are able to take the double leap of 16 units (two 8-unit shift). This has been indicated in Table I by ¶¶. Kr, Xe and Rn, with higher atomic numbers, take on the 8-unit zero-shift (indicated in Table I by ¶). Ar, the element next to Ne in the inert gas series, is also able to take on the 16-unit zero-shift li.ke both of its predecessors. But its net total displacement being much higher than that of He or Ne, the probability of the 16--unit shift competes equally with that of the 8-unit shift resorted to by Kr and the higher members. We will find in a number of instances where alternative atomic rotational orientations are possible, as will be seen below, the question of the relative probabilities plays a significant role in determining the value of the ionization energy observed macroscopically. Pending detailed study of the relative probabilities we will assume that the 16-unit shift and the 8-unit shift have equal probabilities in the case of Ar. Thus the ionization energy of Ar comes out to be the arithmetic mean of the two values resulting from the 16-unit shift and the 8-unit shift, namely, 15.92 eV.
It will be seen that this alternative of zero-shifting is invariably the expedient adopted by all the elements of Division IV (and those of Division III nearer the border between Divisions III and IV, of Groups 2B, 3A, 3B and 4A. In the case of Group 4A elements Ta (4-4-(14)) through Pt (4-4-(8)) the 8-unit zero-shift is not feasible, since the existing space displacement in the electric climension is greater than 8 units. These elements, therefore, take the 16-unit zero-shift. It is worth noting that in the case of the elements S (3-2-(2)), Se (3-3-(2)), Os (4-4-(10)), Ir (4-4-(9)) and Pt (4-4-(8))--in all of which the electric displacement is at the bottom of the first or second 8-unit stretch-the positive rotation effectuated by zero-shifting seems to act either in the collinear or in the transverse capacity with equal probability. This leaves the Division IV elements of Group 2A, which have some peculiarity arising out of their low net total displacement. These elements, N, O and F do resort to the zero-shifting, like the rest of their electro-negative family, but, by virtue of their low net total displacements they are able to take on the 16-unit double shift, like the two inert gas elements, He and Ne, that bracket their group. In fact, the probabilities of the 16-unit and 8-unit shifts are about the same for each of these elements.
Table II.
References - R.W. Satz, “
*Further Mathematics of the Reciprocal System*,”Reciprocity, X (3), 1980. - Idem, “
*Photoionization and Photomagnetization*,” Reciprocity, XII (1), Winter 1981-82. - D.B. Larson, “
*Nothing But Motion,*”North Pacific Publishers, Portland, Or., 1979, p.163. - K.V.K. Nehru, “
*Internal Ionization and Secondary Mass,*” privately circulated paper. - D.B. Larson, “
*The Structure of rhe Physical Universe*, ”North Pacific Publishers, Portland, Or., 1959, p. 119. - J.A. Dean, ed.,
*Lange’s Handbook of Chemistry*, 1973, pp. 3-6 to 3-8. - D.B. Larson, “Solid Cohesion,”
*Reciprocity*, XII (1), Winter 1981-82, 15. - Idem,
*Nothing But Motion,*p. 222.
Table I. Ionization Energy of the Elements
Note: |