n-Dimensional Molecules

[Keiji]

Ok, let's take water as an example here. Water is H2O, so it has three atoms. Assuming atoms are points, whatever you do to this triangle of points, will always make it lie in a plane. Just like whatever you do to two points will always make it lie on a line. Anyway, this shows us that any three-atomed monecule would be constantly rotating in one way or another if it was in tetraspace, just like two-atomed monecules are always rotating in realmspace. Therefore, 4-dimensional water would be constantly "falling apart" and so could only exist as a gas, like oxygen/hydrogen/nitrogen/chlorine do in realmspace.

Then, in tetraspace water would better to have 4 atoms - bringing up H2O2 in the form H-O-O-H - with each atom extending in different dimensions.

Now thinking about the two-atomed monecules (lets take hydrogen as an example), in tetraspace things have to rotate around a plane, but as you cannot construct a plane from two points, they would either not be able to exist at all, or their movement would be extremely unpredictable.

So, assuming that they would not be able to exist at all,
- hydrogen would not have an equivalent in tetraspace
- oxygen would have to either be O3 or O4, the former being gas only, the latter would be liquid
- nitrogen would only be able to exist as N4 which would make it a liquid
- chlorine would not have an equivalent in tetraspace.

Carbon would also be a rather interesting atom. As carbon dioxide it would only be able to exist as a gas in tetraspace, but it would need an extra carbon or oxygen atom to exist as a liquid.
If there was an extra carbon atom it would simply exist as O=C=C=O, whereas if there was an extra oxygen atom it would exist like this:

Code: Select all

    O
   /|
O=C |
   \|
    O

Of course all these theories are based on the fact that atoms remain equivalent throughout the dimensions but the monecules don't.

[alkaline]

I don't ever remember hearing that two-atom molecules are always rotating. I don't think it's true, i don't know where you got that from. How do you explain all of the one-atom metals that exist as solids, like gold, and the metal that exists as a liquid, mercury? The physical state of matter depends on the interaction between electrons and configurations of atoms wrt each other, how much energy they have, etc.

Water is a term for the 3d molecule H[sub]2[/sub]O. Thus, you can't rightfully call a 4d molecule water. If you're looking for the analog of water, you want a molecule that will be liquid at room temperature and has a polar structure. Water's unique properties are what makes it so important to life. You would need a different structure in the fourth dimension in order to have a molecule with these properties. Besides, you wouldn't even have the same atoms - first, you would have to figure out the table of elements and assign names to all of them.

I don't think the points about rotation around lines/planes has anything to do with the stability of molecule structures. Molecules can rotate any direction they are free to, no matter whether the molecule forms a point, line, plane, realm, or tetrealm.

so, my claims, assuming atoms are stable in tetraspace:
- the equivalent of the hydrogen atom is the first element in the 4d periodic table, and it would have a stable form in nature (possibly H[sub]2[/sub] just like in realmspace)
- likewise, whatever element falls on the analogous location in the table to oxygen, it would form a stable structure as O[sub]2[/sub]
- same for nitrogen
- chlorine *would* have an analogous form
- the analogy to the carbon atom would be something that formed a 4-simplex when bonding with other molecules.

again, the gas/liquid/solid state of a molecule isn't determined by its shape, it is determined by energy states.

[Keiji]

Well, that's what happens when I'm bored

This is a forum for theories, right?

PS. How did you do that subscript when you typed "H2O"?

[alkaline]

yep, this is certainly a board for theories, and it is also a board for those theories to be discussed, and possibly discarded if they don't make sense :-). You just have to be sure you understand your own dimension correctly before you generalize into higher dimensions.

I added a special bbcode tag for subscript/superscript into the forum a while back for Aale to use... you type [ sup ] for superscript, and [ sub ] for subscript, just without the spaces. Thus you can do x[sup]2[/sup] and x[sub]2[/sub]. Just remember to terminate the tags with a [ /sup ] and [ /sub ] respectively, and again without spaces.
.

[Keiji]

Ah - would be good if you could add a button to do that for you :wink:

x[sub]2[/sub] x[sup]3[/sup]

[edit]cool it works [/edit]

[Aale de Winkel]

those buttons I haven't seen yet and probably won't use, clubbing in the coding is more easy then mousing some button!

Problem with the interesting subject here, is that one needs to review the various forces involved in molecules within the context of tetraspace. If memory serves even in the simple H atom, the position of the electron surrounding the neutron is described by a probability cloud. And as you might know position and velocity (impuls) are subject to the heisenberg uncertainty relation dx dp = h, stating that once the position is known its velocity is not. Although it is a 2 particle problem, I do think forementioned probability cloud is 3d and not as expected 2d.

Also there is a definite reason why the angle in O-H-O is I believe 105[sup]o[/sup], an angle which allows the microwave to function. For me this was high-school stuff in some chemistry-course (30 years back)

Also the state of the molecule (solid, liquid, gas,..) can hardly be derived from the molecule formulae, also tempature is involved (H[sub]2[/sub]O we know as a solid (ice) a liquid (water) and a gas (vapour) depending on the temperature, this is in fact the basis of the Celsius temperature scale)

Is there a theoretical chemist in the avator list!?

[Polyhedron Dude]

Water is a term for the 3d molecule H[sub]2[/sub]O. Thus, you can't rightfully call a 4d molecule water. If you're looking for the analog of water, you want a molecule that will be liquid at room temperature and has a polar structure. Water's unique properties are what makes it so important to life. You would need a different structure in the fourth dimension in order to have a molecule with these properties. Besides, you wouldn't even have the same atoms - first, you would have to figure out the table of elements and assign names to all of them.

About a decade or so ago, I attempted to do just that - even building a 3-D model of the periodic table of 4-D elements, with names too (I would be very surprised if it was correct ). I was really into chemistry before I got into polytopes, primarily the elements - even went as far as collecting samples of 79 of them. Just for kicks, I once tried to calculate the properties of trans-actinide elements up to element 1000 and given them outlandish names.

Polyhedron Dude

[Geosphere]

Atoms, as we know them, really have no reason to exist in tetra. Just as weve discussed so many times our triangular friend being destroyed on entering realmspace, we have very little reason to believe an atom would survive the transition.

[alkaline]

at the moment i am going through the solution to the schroedinger equation for hydrogen, trying to see what happens with 43 dimensions instead of 3. I heard that there are no bound states for the hydrogen atoms in the fourth dimension; i'm going to see if simply adjusting a constant could fix that.

[RQ]

H[sub]2[/sub]O on the go
.