It appears you have not yet registered with our community. To register please click here...

Theory of Everything  

  
Go Back   Theory of Everything > Physics > General Physics > Chemistry
Reload this Page a physical proof for a proximity theorem
Register Website Toe Club Your Blog Arcade

Welcome to the Theory of Everything forums.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
a physical proof for a proximity theorem
Old
  (#1 (permalink))
Raider of the lost time
AntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the rough
 
AntonioLao's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 5,109
Thanks Given: 641
Thanked 97x in 96 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2003
Rep Power: 71
   
a physical proof for a proximity theorem - 01-28-2008, 02:12 PM

Putting all other chemical properties aside, the unique atomic radius and the ionic radius of elements in the periodic table can be used as proofs for the existence of a theorem on a principle of proximity.

Generally, this principle asserts that the interactions of matter with matter, energy with energy, vacuum with vacuum, matter with energy, matter with vacuum, and energy with vacuum follow along a logical understanding of how close or how near they are to each other. This can help to clarify the physical concept of temperature and many other intensive physical variables, e.g., pressure, density, and viscosity. Most people agree that a macroscopic system can well be described by a single extensive variable. However, the same system must well be described by a set of intensive variables. Some examples of extensive variables are volume, mass, and total energy. On the other hand, if an extensive variable is divided by an arbitrary extensive one, the final outcome is an intensive variable and no more division is possible, exemplifying the quantum nature of its origin.

The atoms of life are well known as hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen with rare appearance of phosphorus and sulfur. Coincidently, when their atomic radii are normalized to unity relative to oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen, hydrogen gives ½ while phosphorus and sulfur both give 4/3. The others could not be normalized within the integral value of 4. However, their ionic radii become 1/5 for carbon, 2 for both oxygen and nitrogen, 8/3 for both phosphorus and sulfur. These relative radii proximity seems to what gave life possible.


Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: a(tr(t)=c²
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
Reply



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.1.0
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com