Let us recall, once again, the foundations of the Molecular Kinetic Theory (MKT), created by two outstanding, great physicists Maxwell and Boltzmann about 150=170 years ago, and generally accepted at the moment, and the foundations of the Configurational Theory of Electronic Orbits (CTEO), created just a few years ago by an unknown NON a theoretical or experimental physicist, who does NOT know mathematics at all, unlike the aforementioned scientists and does not have any scientific titles or titles.

He’s just a writer and a moron!

The Molecular Kinetic Theory states that molecules and atoms can be considered as some kind of elastic balls moving at high speeds in gases (especially discharged ones), colliding and exchanging kinetic energy. Moreover, this kinetic energy of motion is THEIR THERMAL ENERGY. That is, the faster they move, the greater their thermal energy and the total given mass of matter. And, of course, the higher the temperature of a given mass of matter!

In liquids, they move much less than in gases, and in solids, crystalline, they simply make small vibrations near the equilibrium position.

The Configurational Theory of Electronic Orbits considers atoms and molecules not just as some kind of elastic bodies, but as ordered systems with an internal structure that plays a predominant role in various interactions of these bodies. According to the CTEO, the thermal energy of atoms and molecules is NOT the kinetic energy of their motion, but the degree of deformation of their electronic orbits. To determine the “reference point” of this degree of deformation, the CTEO introduces a new definition of the atomic state, “IDEAL ATOM” (in contrast to the generally accepted two states of atoms: “normal” and “excited”). An ideal atom is an atom in the almost complete absence of any “external” influence that distorts its most “natural” state of electronic orbits.

An example of such a state may be an atom of matter at temperatures close to absolute zero, or an atom placed in a certain region of outer space in the almost complete absence of external influences.

The closer the atoms are to this state, that is, by reducing the degree of deformation of the orbits, the “colder” they are!

Why does the word “ALMOST” appear?

Because, according to the CTEO, all atoms interact NON-QUANTUM but actively with the environment, continuously emitting pulses of electromagnetic waves/

AGAIN, we are not talking about quantum jumps of electrons from orbit to orbit, but a constant pulsation of the general electromagnetic field of the atom due to periodic changes in the density of the negative charge of the shells caused by the rotation of electrons in orbits. In each orbit and at any sublevel, the electrons rotate without emitting anything, because the orbits are STATIONARY. But the total charge density inside the volume of the atom changes due to the rotation of the electrons, and this causes non-quantum radiation of the atom. However, an atom receives exactly the same “recharge” from the environment by radiation from other atoms, and THIS determines its stability, not by the absence of radiation losses, but by the dynamic equilibrium of losses on non-quantum radiation and the immediate continuous replenishment of energy by radiation from outside.

But this process has no effect on the configuration of its orbits. Zero vibrations of atoms are precisely these spontaneous, albeit strictly periodic fluctuations in charge density and the non-quantum radiation they cause. This is true for any atomic state, including the “IDEAL” one

Let’s analyze a few simple phenomena and compare the explanations given by the MKT and the CTEO.

Pour 150 grams of cold water into a glass. The height of the pillar is 8 cm. We measure the pressure of this column on the bottom. And we get the result corresponding to the water level.

What is pressure from the point of view of the MCT?

This is the total number of impacts of molecules of a certain substance (water, in this case) per unit surface area per unit time. Or closer together, the more blows and the harder each blow, the greater the pressure.

What is pressure from the perspective of CTEO?

This is the force of mutual electrical repulsion of two touching layers of matter per unit area of contact. In fact, it is the repulsive force of touching or approaching external electron orbits of atoms or molecules.

Heat this water to, say, eighty degrees Celsius.

Let’s measure the pressure again. It will be practically the same.

Let’s look at this phenomenon again from the standpoint of MKTand CTEO,

Since heat in MКT is the kinetic energy of atoms and molecules, it is natural to assume that the atoms and molecules of hot water move faster than cold water. The faster they move, the higher the temperature! Consequently, the “hot” particles will cause stronger impacts per unit area of the bottom, and the frequency of these impacts will also increase (due to the higher speed of movement of the molecules). This means that the pressure of hot water at the bottom of the glass should increase! And it’s exactly the SAME.

Here it is necessary to emphasize some “ambiguity” in the interpretation of the phenomena of heating and pressure increase in the MCT. In both cases, the heating of, say, the bottom and walls of the glass is caused by impacts of “hot” water molecules. They strike harder and more often, thereby accelerating the vibrational motion of the molecules of the bottom and walls of the glass cup. They heat up. But the MKT PRESSURE is also the total force of the molecules hitting the wall, and this introduces a fundamental indistinguishability of the concepts of heat and pressure! This led to the absurd conclusion that the pressure of hot water at the bottom of the glass was increasing.

From the point of view of the CTEO, the pressure, of course, will not change. The orbits of the electrons increased and their electromagnetic influence on the atoms or molecules of the bottom of the glass caused additional thermal deformation of their orbits, which manifested itself in heating of the bottom and walls. The pressure on the bottom remained the same, because the force of mutual repulsion of these deformed orbits has NOT CHANGED!

As we can see, there is a significant difference in the definition of heat and pressure in MKT and CTEO.

In CTEO, heat is the deformation of the electronic orbits of atoms. The greater the degree of defomation (having the “zero” reference point of the state of the orbits of the “ideal atom”) the higher the “temperature of the atom” and of the whole substance.

Pressure is not actually a deformation (let’s not confuse cause and effect!), but the degree of mutual repulsion of the orbits in contact. It is clear that the orbits of neighboring atoms in an imperfect state have a deforming effect on each other and, as a result, the orbits of all “compressed” or heated atoms turn out to be deformed.

So, it is NOT the deformation of orbits in CTEO that is pressure (this is only the thermal potential energy of atoms), but the force of mutual repulsion of orbits is pressure! And no blows, strong or weak, frequent or rare!

Another example is the difference between the interpretations of the MKT and the CTEO.

We open the valve of a compressed air cylinder at room temperature, and the compressed gas rushes out, COOLING STRONGLY at the same time.

Why does the gas cool down during expansion?

The MKT gives the following answer:

The gas, expanding, performs expansion work, that is, it consumes internal energy, which means it loses it and therefore cools! As an additive, the cost of internal energy can also be attributed to overcoming the forces of adhesion of compressed gas molecules (viscosity of gases).

The first and main contradiction between MKT and experience is that, according to MKT, the kinetic energy of atoms and molecules is their thermal energy. But with the EXPANSION OF the COMPRESSED GAS CLOUD, the velocity of the molecules increases SIGNIFICANTLY, while in the balloon, being very close together (small free path), the molecules had very low speeds of movement. But the temperature of the gas from expansion drops sharply with the particle velocity increased many times!!! Where is the correspondence between theory and experience???

Let’s move on.

The gas WAS COMPRESSED and therefore already had a RESERVE of POTENTIAL energy for expansion! That’s the reason why it expanded at all. An uncompressed gas will not expand by itself, spending some internal energy on it and cooling down at the same time.

So the argument about a certain expenditure of internal energy for expansion is unconvincing!

To this, supporters of the MKT object that the gas OVERCOMES the external pressure of atmospheric air and this expansion work does not convince the argument again! The air in the cylinder is compressed to a pressure of 50-100 atmospheres or more and was initially compressed from the atmospheric pressure level, so the difference is in favor of compressed gas and it does not need to spend any special energy on expansion.

If this gas is allowed to expand under vacuum conditions, then the cooling will still be not less, but more significant! Although there will be no “work to overcome atmospheric pressure” in this case.

Another argument of the MKT supporters sounds like this: the gas, when it was quickly compressed by a compressor, WARMED up adiabatically (that is, without heat influx or outflow) and therefore there was a strongly heated gas in the cylinder. Then it cools down and we release the gas that has cooled down to room temperature, so it cools down!

Let’s conduct a mental experiment: Take a cylinder, pump compressed and heated gas into it, and then IMMEDIATELY open the cylinder tap and release this compressed gas (air) outside. AND IT WILL COOL DOWN A LOT AGAIN!

However, why the thought experiments?

Let’s recall a school experience: room air is compressed into a thick-walled bottle with a stopper. At a certain pressure in the bottle, the cork flies out and the newly compressed air rushes out, expanding, with a pop. And in the bottle we see a MISTY CLOUD condensed from the strong cooling of water vapor in the air!

So, the arguments of the MKT in this case look very far-fetched, unconvincing and artificial!

How does the same phenomenon explain CTEO?

I remind you again:

Heat is the deformation of the electron orbits of an atom, that is, their potential energy.

Pressure is the force of mutual repulsion of the orbits of neighboring atoms.

When we compress the gas, it heats up. Why?

Because by bringing gas atoms or molecules very close together (and this is COMPRESSION), we THEREBY cause a strong mutual deformation of the orbits, overcoming their mutual repulsion by the compressor. The resulting deformation of the orbits is the potential thermal energy of the atoms.

THE GAS IS HEATING UP.

Then, due to diffusion and heat radiation, it cools down.

We open the valve of the compressed gas cylinder. It rushes outward, expanding, and its atoms or molecules acquire significant velocities at the same time – the potential energy of compression turns into kinetic energy of highly accelerated particle expansion!

And the cooling???

The electronic orbits of atoms, which were very deformed in the compressed state, are now beginning to “self-correct”, striving to take the form of orbits of an ideal atom, and this is precisely COOLING, because now the atoms are becoming MORE DISTANT FROM EACH OTHER and their mutual deforming influence is greatly weakened. The atoms are now CLOSER to their ideal state than when they were compressed and their orbits are deformed!

As we can see, there is no contradiction between the greatly increased velocities of the flying particles and their cooling.

On the contrary! It is the expansion, the mutual removal of atoms from each other, that causes their cooling!

The explanation is consistent with reality and consistently NATURAL, without far-fetched and artificial “arguments”.

Another example is Bernoulli’s Law.

Why is the pressure in a fast-flowing stream of liquid or gas less than in a slow-flowing or generally standing substance?

Here, the MKT IGNORES this issue and does not even try to explain this effect in any way. So there’s nothing to compare it with!

How does CTEO explain this phenomenon?

Let us recall again the definition of CIEO given to the pressure of a liquid or gas:

Pressure is the force of mutual repulsion of neighboring electron orbits of atoms or molecules.

Consider the classic example of the Bernoulli effect with a tube and water pressure gauges.

First, the tube is closed. The water is NOT flowing.

The pressure of the water column in the tank and the tube becomes the same, the maximum. The columns of water in the pressure gauges rise to the water level in the tank. What happens to the electronic orbits of atoms and molecules of standing water? When brought together, they mutually repel each other and acquire the deformed appearance of compressed ellipsoids with a predominant elongation towards the walls of the pipe and, therefore, exert maximum pressure on them, and according to Pascal’s law, in any direction.

We open the faucet of the tube and the water begins to flow out in a “rapid stream”. Pascal’s law can no longer be applied here, because it applies only to standing and weightless water.

The pressure along the tube axis drops. The ellipsoids of the orbits are now ELONGATED along the tube axis due to the coupling of molecules and atoms of water pulling each other. That is, their pressure to the sides is DECREASING! The pressure in the pressure gauges is dropping. The higher the flow velocity, the more the ellipsoids of the electron orbits stretch, the smaller their electrical component of repulsion becomes in the direction of the walls or neighboring jets. The pressure drops more strongly there, too. The slower the water flows in wider areas, the more “rounded” the ellipsoids of the orbits become and the pressure in the direction perpendicular to the flow velocity vector increases.

This explanation, by the way, once leads “automatically” to the need to introduce two concepts of flow viscosity – longitudinal and transverse, UNEQUAL to each other.

The longitudinal viscosity becomes greater than the transverse viscosity.

And this immediately leads to many explanations for the behavior of liquid and gas flows, and even an explanation for the “paradox” of superfluidity of helium 2, when it flows freely through narrow capillaries with a diameter of one hundred thousandth of a centimeter (SUPERFLUIDITY!), and experiments with a torsion disk immersed in the same helium 2, give the USUAL viscosity for liquid helium (NO SUPERFLUIDITY!).

Here are just three examples of comparing MKT and CTEO.

Let the readers themselves give preference to a theory that is more convincing, consistent and natural!

Faciant meliora potentes.

If I’m wrong, let my seniors correct me.

P.S. For quite a long time I considered the Molecular Kinetic Theory to be INCORRECT. This, in particular, was facilitated by the undiminished zeal of the epigones, who brazenly distorted the basic provisions of the original MKT of the founding fathers. Maxwell and Boltzmann constantly talk about the alignment of the velocities of different molecules of a certain ensemble. The epigones converted the VELOCITIES of the molecules into their kinetic ENERGIES.

Why?

Because the very first experiments to measure the velocities of molecules of different gases at the SAME temperature yielded results that completely contradicted the Maxwell-Boltzmann theory.

And the epigones, in order to save the theory from collapse, hurried to convert the velocities of molecules into their energies, that is, they began to lie, which, they say, MKT speaks about the alignment of the energies of different molecules at the same temperature. And it really coincided with the experiment. I don’t like quackery, even if “with the best intentions.”

So, over the past couple of years, I have been inclined to think that it is NOT the THEORY of MKT that is wrong, but the FIELD OF ITS APPLICATION that is wrong. I believe it would be quite applicable for a high-temperature plasma of hundreds of thousands and millions of degrees, in which there can be no atoms and, even more so, no molecules.

There, perhaps, the theory could work perfectly, but being renamed from “Molecular” to “Plasma-Kinetic”

P.P.S. I think that the reason for the mentioned and unmentioned failures of the MKT is simple and it lies in the fact that its creators considered the atom to be some kind of smallest and Indivisible element of matter. They did not even expect any internal structures. That is why we have reduced all the processes of interaction of atoms with each other to purely mechanical elastic collisions of balls.

Hence the general principle:

The more diverse the structure of an object, the more diverse its ways of interacting with the environment are.

16 XI 2025