Amazing Random

Wolfgang Pauling mistake corrected

We all know what electronegativity is: it is the ability of a chemical element to attract the bonding pair of electrons when it forms a bond with another chemical element. Electronegativity was introduced in 1936 by the German chemist Wolfgang Pauli . He gave the above definition of electronegativity . But where does it come from? Well I think i have the answer ->Radius of the element : The bigger radius of the chemical element , the less electronegativity it has because the attraction from the core of the bonding pair of electrons is reduced by distance and the atomic radius gives a good value for the distance between the core and the valence electrons of every atom. ->Atomic shielding / Effective nuclear charge: Electrons from the inner shells "shield" the bonding pair of electrons from attraction so an element with small effective charge will have relatively slow electronegativity ->Octet rule/Need to have noble gas configuration : All elements want to have a noble gas configuration , that means they want their valence shell to be complete . If a chemical element creates a noble gas configuration by adding 1 electron ,it will have big electronegativity Ok thank you for reading my topic . Comments and corrections appreciable! I will be happy to answer any questions you might have or discuss with you any ideas for improvement / development.

It is verified experimentally. And from the definition of science if something is verified experimentally , it is true and theories must change and adapt to this truth.

QFT has been experimentally proved . Using QFT we were able to calculate things very very unbelieveably precisely.

Look at the whole answer. I say in the end if it has enough relativistic momentum.

QFT.If relativistic events didnt occur at the microscopic world , QFT would have been wrong. Something with relativistic momentum bends space-time. If it has enough relativistic momentum.:)

It is very hard to check because there are many interactions between many nucleons.

Ok but QFT seems to work pretty well . How do you explain it?

Ok it can be my mistake you misunderstood because i first learn relativistic stress and later i found out it is relativistic momentum. Yes but relativistic events occur in the microscopic world . A big proof for my statement is QFT.

Relativistic stress is relativistic momentum

Relativistic stress have all object with mass and all objects moving at the speed of light.I don't understand..... P = mc+h/λ Omg you are very smart! What do you mean by stating that? I can't understand you . I know particle physics but clearly you are on a different level. Sorry:)

This is my opinion : Gravity is an effect only of the macroscopic world . The objects in the microscopic world don't have the required stress-energy to cause any bending to the space-time . So gravity isn't created . And yes there is a barrier of stress-energy below which gravity doesn't exist.Above the stress-energy barrier gravity exists.

Those cores are easy to do because they have few nucleons . I have to make lot of calculations for all isotopes.....Also I am not working with numbers , I work with facts....so someone must teach me how to represent those things mathematically . I know calculus and derivatives but I dont have a mathematical mind....

*Relativistic stress.

Next to I mean proton and the nearest nucleon is a proton. I have already given examples. Helium-2 vs Hydrogen-2 Helium-3 vs Hydrogen-3 Hydrogen-4&more Helium-5&more Beryllium-7 vs Lithium-7

??? Gravity is created when large quantities of matter come close to each other . It is turned on when the stress of the matter is big enough.

Well we know that most cores of atoms are said to be stable or unstable by doing experiments . But I think I have found a way to predict if a core is stable or not without the known proton/neutron ratios : There are 3 interactions which contribute to the stability of a core . 1) Electrostatic repulsive forces 2) Pauli repulsion 3) Mass of the neutron being bigger than the mass of the proton When a core is unstable we say it has a big weak interaction potential energy . The weak interaction potential energy is mass . This is how it works : Let's take Hydrogen-2 and Helium-2 : There can be only 1 stable core with a certain amount of nucleons . So which is it in this case? Hydrogen-2 is made from 1 proton and 1 neutron . The mass of a neutron is bigger than the mass of a neutron and this gives the core a relative big mass. Helium-2 is made from 2 protons. The electrostatic force between the two protons is relatively big (because they are close) and this gives the core a relative big mass. It turns out that the electric potential energy in a helium-2 core gives the core more mass than the excess mass of a neutron. Helium-2 has bigger mass than Hydrogen-2 and it decays to Hydrogen-2. P.S. It is energetically favourable a core with domain: Proton-Neutron-Proton-Neutron...... A core with two protons next to each other is unstable 100%.For a core to be stable at any axis two protons can never be next to each other. Hydrogen-4 is a synthesized product by firing high energetically Hydrogen-2 atoms to a Hydrogen-3 atom. It is highly unstable . Hydrogen-4 has 1 proton and 3 neutrons . Well due to the neutrons being close to each very close to each other , and since two fermions in a quantum system cannot occupy the same quantum state , the pauli repulsion becomes very big which means lot of potential energy which is converted to mass . Glad to be helpful!Comments and corrections appreciated.

How does it work on hydrogen atoms? Gravity is the effect of stress . When an object doesn't have the required stress , gravity doesn't exist. Many small things can add up to something bigger . When something has an effect due to its population it doesn't mean the individual part of the population may affect . Look how democracy works . One person's opinion is never enough , well 1 thousands persons opinion makes the local authorities consider them and 1 million persons makes the national authorities consider them.:) Do you think there is a limit before the space-time cannot be bent?

A fluid as a whole has different properties than the molecules who make it...

Many substances can be dissolved in alcohol . Due to the OH group at the alcohol molecule , it becomes polar so it can attract ions . On the other hand oils are made of organic acids which of course are polar so all oils can be dissolved in an aquallibrium of alcohol.

Well we all know what events gravity creates : an apple falling from a tree , planets orbiting around the sun . Until the mid 1920's we thought that gravity was the attraction between objects with mass , but Einstein came and said nope : gravity is the bending of space-time around something with stress . Quantum mechanics is the theory that describes the world of subatomic particles , the foundations of you , me , everything . However at its original form quantum mechanics didn't describe how those foundation blocks interact with each other . So some physicists tried to unified Relativity and Quantum Mechanics to describe those interactions. Their efforts were successful by the creation of quantum electrodynamics and quantum chromodynamics. However when they applied their methods to gravity , they failed to describe the gravitational interaction of subatomic particles. This is a brief history of our today's subject . Well I was wondering since some effects wave-matter duality can be applied only to the microscopic world of molecules , why cant something be applied only to "big" objects ? Well I thought that the standard model of physics predicts a boson carrying the gravitational force . But what if gravity doesn't exist in the microscopic world? I mean the objects we study in a quantum system and their effects are very small . So there wouldn't affect space-time at all . (And space-time is not easy to be bent). So what if gravity just doesn't exist at the microscopic world ? This would agree with the experimental data until today .