3.4b. Critical points in the classical theories (continuation)

        In 1911 Kamerlingh Onnes discovered a quite interesting phenomenon: the superconductivity of mercury. In a superconductor, as it was later observed, there circulate electric currents that go on doing so for several years without decreasing at all. Therefor, in a superconductor electrons travel in trajectories in which they "are allowed" to disrespect the classic electromagnetic theory. Up to 1957, there was practically no explanation for this phenomenon. The greatest difficulty for theorization was the incompatibility between the superconductivity and Drude and Lorentz’s electric conduction theory mentioned above. In 1957 Bardeen, Cooper and Schrieffer (BCS) decided to ignore the theory concerning free electrons, and proposed a model which was compatible with experimental results. The BCS theory met with a great acceptance, and due to its success the following truths were then taken for granted: BP3 is true, the BCS theory is true, Maxwell’s equations are true, and the theory concerning free electrons is true. So many incompatible truths eventually made scientific methodology to be rejected. And something proved false: Popper’s logic [22].

        The disagreement about the theme is not restricted to Physics. In Chemistry the hybrid of resonance are a good example, such as the benzene structure. In it, six electrons circulate regardless of all theoretical predictions just like the electrons of an excited superconductor, giving benzene an extra stability which is hard to be explained [23]. The oxidation-reduction reactions are also problematic: they present themselves in two thermodynamic versions and it seems that all previsions in accordance to Maxwell’s theory as in the case of conductors do work well exclusively in the irreversible version. In this obscure section of Chemistry we also have the "intersection of states model" (ISM) developed by Formosinho and Varandas [24]. This model seems to suggest in the case of the oxidation-reduction reactions the existent of an intermediate state in which the electrons would transit according to ephemeral and allowed macro-orbits, i.e., without irradiating energy.

        In biophysics there are two metabolic processes of vital importance: the cellular respiration and photosynthesis. Chains transporting electrons, indifferent to the classic Physics postulates, are coupled to systems storing the energy that should be irradiated in it by the decelerated electrons. This phenomenon was presented by Szent Gyrgyi, when he was in New Jersey (Princeton, USA), as follows:

        What is notable in this case is that the electrons exactly know what they should do. Thus, this small electron knows something that all the wise people in Princeton ignore, something that only be a very simple thing [25].

        The energy stored during this deceleration is turned into chemical energy through oxidative phosphorylation. According to Peter Dennins Mitchell this is processed thanks to the mediation of a polarized enzymatic system located in the inner membrane of the mitochondrion allowing the transport of protons through the membrane, in obedience to a protomotive gradient [26], and the protons there accelerated leave their non-irradiated energy with the ATP. Therefore, it exists an enzymatic trajectory where the protons, in a similar way to Bohr’s electrons, are authorized to disrespect the classic rule. In all the above-mentioned examples the allowed trajectories are areas of adiabatic confinement, i.e. the processes that use them present a reversible character.

        The atom conception as a planetary system, based on Rutherford’s model, although it became the only plausible hypothesis, also puzzled the physicists of his time. The solution of the dilemma was found by Bohr through other postulates (BP2 and BP4 according to Eisberg’s numeration). These postulates are strategic in the sense that they are in agreement with experimentation; at the same time they disguise the absurd coexistence among the other postulates (BP1 and BP3). In fact, in BP2 Bohr refers to the infinite possible orbits, according to classic mechanics. Classic mechanics only starts acting when the forces of interaction electron-proton are defined; and as we have seen, if these interactions are Coulomb forces, BP3 is false, or vice-versa. So up till now classic mechanics cannot give any guarantee concerning the possible number of orbits.

        Whatever the proton-electron or nucleus-electrons relationship might be, the truth is that the resulting grouping should be much more complex than a pair of binary stars, or a planetary system kept in a stationary state by inertia and gravitational interactions.