Another thought about Bernoulli’s law.

A new attempt to give a PHYSICAL explanation for the phenomenon of pressure drop in a liquid or gas stream.

A forced long preface.

Attempts to explain this strange phenomenon from the standpoint of the Molecular Kinetic Theory (MKT) lead to nothing and cannot lead, because the theory itself is incorrect if applied to atoms and molecules of matter. Although, it is quite possible that it can prove its validity for the case of plasma, when matter exists not in the form of ordered structures, molecules or atoms, but in the form of chaotically moving electrons, protons, neutrons and “naked” nuclei.

As I have described more than once, this theory, even in the most elementary cases, demonstrates its inability to logically and consistently explain the most common effects.

The idea of this theory, created by two outstanding physicists Maxwell and Boltzmann, was that molecules and atoms of any substance should be considered as some kind of moving elastic balls that, when colliding, exchange energies and impulses. From the point of view of the MCT, heat is the movement of molecules and atoms, and the faster they move, the greater their kinetic energy, and on the macroscale, the higher the temperature of the substance. From the point of view of statistics, if there is a certain set of molecules or atoms moving initially at different speeds, then, being left to themselves, that is, without any external influence, the velocities of the particles will gradually equalize STATISTICALLY, because they will always be faster and slower compared to the prevailing AVERAGE velocity of the particles. This, again, was predicted in many works by Maxwell and Boltzmann.

But this statement alone could no longer withstand a collision with reality: Molecules of different gases at the same temperature move at DIFFERENT, and very DIFFERENT speeds! Epigon’s, in the name of saving this theory, distorted the views of the founding fathers of the MKT and replaced the VELOCITIES of molecules with their kinetic energy, which gave the correct result, coinciding with the experiment.

Another example, also mentioned by me more than once. If the pressure of a liquid, say, on the walls of the vessel into which it is poured, is the total impact of molecules per unit surface area of the vessel, then if you pour cold water into a glass, its pressure on the bottom will have a certain value due to the height of the column of liquid, That is, water molecules hit the bottom at a certain speed and The sum of impacts per unit area per unit time is the desired pressure.

Let’s heat this water to almost a hundred degrees. According to the MCT, the molecules will start moving noticeably faster, therefore their kinetic energy will increase, which means that the force of impacts will also increase. In addition, due to the higher speed, the number of strikes per unit of time will also increase. This means that the pressure of hot water on the bottom of the glass should also increase significantly (according to MKT). But the pressure will remain the SAME!

Another example:

From a vessel with compressed gas, we release gas into the atomosphere or into an airless space. A well–known physical effect is that the gas is strongly cooled at the same time. But when it was compressed in a vessel, its molecules moved slowly, because the free path was extremely small and the molecules simply had nowhere to gain sufficient speed. At the same time, the gas temperature was, say, room temperature. By releasing gas, we give the molecules the opportunity to gain significant speeds, and this is an increase in kinetic energy according to MKT, which means a macroscopic INCREASE in TEMPERATURE! HEATING UP THE GAS!Again, the MKT radically diverges from experience in its predictions.

There are other examples of inconsistencies between experience and theory. (The last time I mentioned this was in the note “Warming up due to loss of energy”).

In order not to bore readers any more, I turn to Bernoulli’s law

Since it is necessary to abandon the MCT, it remains to replace it with the Molecular Electrical Theory (MET), which I have long proposed, the core of which is the “Configuration Theory of Electronic Orbits” (СTEO) with the introduction of a new concept of the “Ideal State of the atom” or, briefly, the “Ideal Atom”.

WHAT IS PRESSURE from the point of view of the MET?

This is the electrostatic interaction (mutual repulsion) of atoms and molecules caused by the field interaction of their external electrons. The greater the force of mutual repulsion, the greater the pressure of one substance on another or the same. The lower the repulsive force, the lower the pressure. Atoms, although at large distances, much larger than their sizes, which are considered electrically neutral (plus the nuclei are compensated by an equal charge of the electron shell), nevertheless, being brought together at distances comparable to their sizes, they interact very actively with each other by electrons of external orbits.

This is both repulsion and attraction.

In this case, we are interested in repulsion – pressure. When the atoms of a gas or liquid are at relative rest (they move chaotically, but there is no flow, orderly and directional movement, they repel each other due to a single sign of the charge of their external electrons.

In general, we can talk about the spherical symmetry of their electrostatic field.

When there is a flow, that is, an ordered and directed movement of some atoms relative to some stationary ones, the shape of their electric field changes: the symmetry disappears and the field of moving from the “point of view of the stationary” takes the form of an ellipsoid in the direction of the axis of motion. That is, the TRANSVERSE magnitude of the electrostatic mutual repulsion of atoms by fields decreases, which means that the PRESSURE on neighboring, stationary atoms decreases! The faster the atoms of the flow move, the more elongated their electrostatic field, the more elongated the ellipsoid, which means that the transverse component of their repulsive field is smaller. The slower the flow, the more the ellipsoid of the field of mobile atoms approaches spherical symmetry and the pressure – repulsion increases.

The Bernoulli effect!

Of course, we are talking about the velocities of the flow of gas or liquid, incomparably lower than the speed of light, the approach to which, according to the known Lorentz transformations, turns the sphere of the field of a relativistically moving charge into a disk. And these speeds are unattainable for macro objects in terrestrial conditions.

This assumption leads to an additional interesting topic about the viscosity of the longitudinal and transverse. Will the speed of sound, longitudinal and transverse, be the same in a moving stream? No, of course not. But here the lengthening of the path intervenes!!! And we are interested in the instantaneous speed of sound. Therefore, measuring the signal transit time is not the right method. But rather the Doppler effect. If we compare the velocities along the flow in the direction of the flow and against it, then again a change in the distance traversed by sound intervenes.

If the hypothesis is true that particles in a stream are bound by longitudinal viscosity more strongly than transverse, then sound IN ANY DIRECTION – along or against the stream – would have to propagate faster. But again, measure it using the “distance. divided by the passage time” is INCORRECT. Perhaps it should be measured only by the Doppler effect.

Faciant meliora potentes.

21 IX 2024