Science Errors

Chapter 4: Clueless on Electrons

Chapter Summary

Physicists have kinetic energy being transformed into chemical energy in claiming fossil fuels are created through pressure and in claiming ATP is energized by rotating proteins. Nothing can increase chemical energy but radiation, because acting upon nuclei cannot increase the motion of electrons. Chemical energy is in the motion of electrons which orbit nuclei. How could physicists not know this? They are so absorbed in contrivance and fraud that they don't really study the science of a subject.

◆    ◆    ◆    ◆    ◆    ◆    ◆    ◆    ◆    ◆    ◆

Quantum Mechanics is Fantasy

Quantum mechanics is largely a study of electrons. Physicists should know a lot about electrons by now. But the basic assumptions and starting point for the subject are so ridiculous that they stopped all further progress in its tracks.

Max Planck was a theoretical physicist attempting, around 1900, to determine the amount of energy produced by light or radiation. He acquired the assumption that radiant energy contained units of fixed amounts, and those units are now called photons or packets. It looks to me like the reason why physicists accepted that theory is because it reduces to a mathematical constant, while no other analysis of the problem does.

Packets of energy are absurd by all criteria. Packets have length, width and height; energy does not. Energy is basically the ability to create motion. There is no concept of creating motion from packets. There is no momentum involved, like a bean bag. It's supposed to be radiation. How can radiation be contained in a packet? It can't.

Physicists admit that the photon concept is in conflict with the wave theory of light; and yet they cling to both concepts after more than a century of contradictions. Science doesn't work that way. Unresolvable contradictions are not science until the contradictions are resolved. Until then, it's just a study of the problem, not a conclusion.

Here's what the problem is: Electrons which spin around nuclei will shift to a higher orbit only when they acquire a fixed amount of energy. Radiation will provide that energy, but only if it is the right wavelength. Perhaps then, each wavelength has packets of energy of different sizes. And maybe not. It's hard to imagine that physicists couldn't have come up with better theories. But they are drawn to reductionist mathematics, and packets of energy get them there.

What really happens is that electrons need a certain amount of energy to get to a higher orbit, and only the right wavelength of radiation will provide that energy, because the radiation must bump the electron numerous times and on the same side of its orbit each time. If the electron is bumped on both sides of its orbit, one bump neutralizes the other. Only the right wavelength will bump the electron on the same side of its orbit each time.

Scientists know that radiation decreases in energy with the square of the distance that it travels. The photon theory says the energy of radiation stays the same regardless of how far it travels. What could be more ridiculous. Only wanton reductionism could produce such a concept. But this concept is the essence of quantum mechanics. It's so ridiculous that it prevents physicists from making any progress in understanding what electrons do.

Claimed Fossil Fuels are not Fossil Fuels

This ignorance shows up in many places. A simple example is the claim that so-called fossil fuels were created from biological materials under heat and pressure. A truism is that neither kinetic energy nor heat can be transformed into chemical energy.

Fossil fuels are called hydrocarbons. They have two hydrogen molecules attached to most of the carbon atoms with no oxygen. Biological materials are mostly carbohydrates. carbsThere are two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom attached most of the carbon atoms. The greater oxidation of carbohydrates means they are in a lower energy state than hydrocarbons. Heat and pressure cannot increase the energy state of carbohydrates to that of hydrocarbons.

Heat and pressure can only act upon nuclei; they cannot act upon electrons. Therefore, they cannot increase the energy state of electrons. And therefore, they cannot increase the energy state of carbohydrates. Chemical energy is in electrons, not nuclei.

Nothing but radiation can increase the energy of electrons or create chemical energy. Nuclear reactions are sort of an exception, but they are so complex that it is hard to say that they increase the energy of electrons apart from radiation. Regardless, nuclear reactions have nothing to do with fossil fuels.

Where then do fossil fuels come from? They would have been created with the origins of the planet. Oxygen, hydrogen and carbon would have combined to form water and hydrocarbons. The oxygen would have gotten used up before the hydrogen and carbon resulting in some hydrocarbons forming. It was only later than additional oxygen was added to the atmosphere.

Scientists are theorizing that oxygen was added to the atmosphere only after photosynthesis began, as oxygen is a byproduct of photosynthesis. It seems unlikely that biology evolved to the point of photosynthesis without oxygen in the atmosphere. Respiration would be needed to get rid of the accumulation of biomass. So respiration should have evolved from the beginning of biology, which is quite a bit before photosynthesis could have evolved.

It seems more likely that the atmosphere would have acquired oxygen from perchlorates which were mixed into the outer crust of the earth and released with some delay. Perchlorates are solids under appropriate conditions, but they easily break down into oxygen and other molecules. Salt would have been the end point for the chlorine, and this is probably why the oceans have so much salt.

At any rate, hydrocarbons were created very early in the earth's formation, and only the ones deep in the ground survived the harsh conditions of the early formation of the planet. Coal took various forms as hydrocarbons mixed with other things including vegetation. If peat evolved into a type of coal, then it has no more energy than the plant material had.

ATP Synthesis

Another place where physicists get chemical energy wrong is in the study of ATP synthesis. Since ATP is about energy, it is studied by biophysicists. If they studied any biology with the physics, they couldn't have gotten it so wrong. They have kinetic energy restoring the chemical energy of ATP. A truism is that kinetic energy can never be converted to biochemical energy.

Biochemical energy is in covalent bonds, which means electrons orbiting the bonded nuclei. The energy is in the motion of electrons. Kinetic energy is in the motion of nuclei. Nothing can be done to nuclei short of a nuclear reaction which will add energy to electrons.

The ionic bonds of inorganic chemistry are different from the covalent bonds of organic chemistry. Ionic bonds are not understood, but they are weak and do not involve electrons orbiting nuclei in a close and strict manner. They are subject to electrochemical influences which organic molecules are not.

The linear motion of electrons (such as copper wires) is a totally different question. Yet the childish rationalizing on this subject includes a lot of reference to batteries claiming that the chemical energy of batteries is derived from the mechanical motion of the generator (or alternator). Batteries are not a form of chemical energy; they are electrical energy. The difference is that chemical energy is in electrons which orbit nuclei, while electrical energy is linearized for flowing through wires, not around nuclei.

Only the radiation of photosynthesis can increase chemical energy in biological systems. All other reactions reduce the amount of chemical energy, as heat is a byproduct of energy transfers.

ATP is the universal energy carrier in biology. It donates chemical energy to biochemical reactions. It gives up its energy by splitting into ADP and inorganic phosphate (Pi). To become reenergized, another source of chemical energy is needed. During respiration, the primary carrier of the energy is hydrogen attached to NAD, which is at a higher energy state than ATP. In fact, three ATPs are usually reenergized from each NADH.

What biologists know about the process is this: NADH feeds a high energy electron into the cytochrome system. An electron flow through three cytochromes energizes three ATP molecules. Biologists do not know exactly what cytochromes do. Biophysicists virtually ignore the cytochromes and concoct an absurd alternative.

The structure of cytochromes provides much evidence of their function. Cytochromes are somewhat circular structures containing a large number of double bonds creating properties much like aromatics, and they have a metal in the center, usually iron and sometimes copper. These characteristics point to a quasi linearization or free motion of electrons (with no mechanical energy involved). Copper and iron seem to linearize or free-up the motion of electrons.

An important thing about cytochromes is that you can give or take a few electrons, at least one. This is what creates the extremely high efficiency of energy transfer. Almost no energy is lost in generating three ATPs. Electrons can be traded in this system. A high energy electron can be fed in, and one of just the right amount of energy can be taken out for energizing an ATP molecule. Biophysicists have a totally unrecognizable method of getting ATP energized.

During respiration, hydrogen ions (protons) are pumped across a membrane into an area where they form an osmotic pressure. They then use that force to turn rotating proteins which control the reactions. The rotating proteins move reactants into place and remove the finished product as ATP.

Biophysicists claim that the high energy electrons are used to create the osmotic pressure of the protons. No such mechanism exists. As protons turn proteins, ATP is said to be energized by "binding force" from the rotating proteins. This says kinetic energy is converted into chemical energy, an impossibility. It also uses as much energy as it transfers, so there can be no increased energy in the resulting ATP.

ATP is commonly used to transport hydrogen ions (protons) across membranes. This is called the hydrogen ion pump. It is used to control pH inside of cells by excreting excess acid (hydrogen ions). It would also be the way in which the osmotic pressure of protons is created for ATP synthesis. It means some ATP is used up creating the concentrated mass of protons called an osmotic gradient.

Therefore, according to the theory of biophysicists, the same amount of energy would be required to create the osmotic gradient as gained in the resulting ATP, and there would be no net gain in the process. It takes the energy equivalent of an ATP molecule to move a proton into place and the energy of the proton to synthesize an ATP molecule.

What really happens would be that an ATP molecule would be used to pump a proton into its gradient, but the proton is then used only to turn the rotating proteins. One proton would turn the proteins through numerous revolution, as very little energy would be lost in keeping the proteins rotating.

The purpose of the rotating proteins is to move reactants into place and out of the way again. Every biochemical reaction would benefit from rotating proteins for moving reactants around. Otherwise, simple diffusion is required for moving reactants, and it would be much slower.

Using rotating proteins is way too demanding for most biochemical reactions, as there are a large number of proteins involved. But it's a mechanism worth the trouble for respiration, because the rate of respiration determines the amount of activity animals can produce and the speed that they can move. When muscles are heavily used, they switch from respiration to fermentation and produce ATP, because respiration cannot keep up. This means respiration is pushed to its limits in animal activity, and rotating proteins are needed to maximize the rate of respiration.

Biologists could not have butchered the subject the way biophysicists did. Biologists (or at least biochemists) account for the amount of energy involved in each reaction. Biophysicists didn't bother. Not only did biophysics have kinetic energy converting into chemical energy, they contrived a new method of transferring energy, which they called "binding force." Such a degree of arrogance and wanton disregard for established scientific knowledge only comes out of physics. It's a mentality that has been nurtured in physics for three hundred years.

Even if the energy of a battery is said to be chemical energy (arbitrary terminology), the energy is not defined by electron orbits around nuclei, as it is with ATP. With ions, the relevant electrons are mobile, where the energy is not determined by defined orbits around nuclei, as it is in biochemistry. With batteries, it is only after these mobile electrons are traveling through wires in a linearized form that the mechanical motion of the generator increases their energy. To then say this represents how energy is added to ATP is absurd. This means mechanical motion cannot increase biochemical energy, even if the linearized motion of electrons in a battery is increased by mechanical motion.

The battery analogy is not the only problem with the ATP analysis of biophysicists. They left out cytochromes. They have binding force of rotating proteins doing what cytochromes do—transferring high energy electrons to ATP. And they have no net gain in ATP—using one molecule of ATP to create the proton gradient for each molecule of ATP energized by the rotating proteins.

Even if biophysicists say the electrons pass through the cytochromes on their way to the rotating proteins (Frauds in science go to great effort to obfuscate rather than explain.), they leave no relevant function for the cytochromes. The source of energy in NADH energizes three ATP molecules. But if all it does is create the proton gradient, it can only energize one ATP molecule.

Respiration only distributes the energy which it gets from NADH. Getting energy out of binding force is not a redistribution process but a transformation process. Transformation means one form of energy is converted into another form. In this case, biophysicists have transformation from biochemical energy (ATP) into mechanical motion (kinetic energy) to turn the rotating proteins, and then the kinetic energy is transformed back into biochemical energy, as binding force supposedly energizes ATP.