A possible way / proposal to test Ivlev Effect

undated (1996-2003 by context; has compiled .dvi/.log companions) · Notas de física · 906 words · recovered from linux/alquimia.tex

Anyone trying mid-to-low energy experiments on mercury will be accused of being an Alchemist, as this become a popular "alchemical particular" in the last age of alchemy, specially since a successful transmutation was ascribed to van Helmont (!) by her son -a well known esoteric-.

So, it will be interesting to use this preprint to briefly introduce some facts about alchemy and its principle. Point is, time ago this science was based in a well-founded theory, which was proved false during the XVII and XIXth centuries, with the advent of molecular (so called "atomic") theory and the building of the periodic table of elements. Thus modern experiments, while involving transmutation, can not be considered a vindication of the theories of alchemists.

We can find some residues of this theory in elementary chemistry, where reactions are classified on grounds of acid/basis polarity or also with reduction/oxidation schemes. Arguably, the use of a valence polarity for non-ionic products or the arrangement of electroafinity series can also be seen as a residual of old practices.

These practices worked under the assumption of a meeting or reaction between two dual and complementary substances: the (uppercase) Mercury and the (upp.) AZUFRE. The ancient "philosophers" come to this conclusion from experimental evidence, and got the names from cinnabar, which decompose in (lowercase) azufre and mercury, and can be re-composed into a cinnabar crystal through careful but simple manips in the laboratory. Furthermore, both elements have a very low point of fusion.

As we know, a simple bipolar scheme is not enough to classify the chemical substances. Thus alchemists integrated in the theory an evolution, where any corruptible substance decays in a way that the natural way is to come, after centuries or millennia, to a incorruptible phase. In in the case of metals they were supposed to evolve toward the noblest, the gold. So, according this theory it was possible to start from a trivial substance (say, cinnabar), separate its fundamental elements and push forward its theorised "natural" grown or evolution, purifying them towards the incorruptible final substances. The alchemist hoped to be able to accelerate the natural process. The combination of the Purest Mercury and the Purest Sulphur was denominated the Philosopher’s Stone.

In order to falsify this theory, some properties of the Stone were conjectured. It was supposed that the strongness of the Pure substance should motivate the evolution of any other impure substance¹. Thus the achieving of the Stone was simply tested by making from it a "projection powder" able to transmute any other substance. This could be used to make gold from quicksilver or even to make more of the Pure Mercury.

For the experimentalist it was clear how to try out this theory. Even if the long manufacturing of the Stone was ruled out, it was possible at least to try to manipulate simple mercury aiming to purify it. Problem at point: the mercury evaporates easily, so it is very diffic to operate with it, specially if you want to purify the substance beyond distillation/footnoteaccidentally, repeated distillation amounted to separation of isotopes. We will never know if some alchemist tripped on heavy water nor got to distinguish different weights of Mercury. Then Alchemy took an strong effort of fixation, in order to be able to raise temperatures without losing the initial substances.

In the XXth century, the disciples of Fulcanelli claimed to be able to execute a transmutation towards gold, but that the consumed heating gas was costing them a lot more that the value of obtained material. Also, a "fast demo" increasing the temperature for a short time, usually by burning a mix of gunpowder and mercuric chlorate, has been popular during all the century, and even a secondary beta radiation was claimed in an experiment in Texas A&M university in 1992. It is striking how the experimentalists in this branch have kept some interest on the practice even when the theoretical Sufre/Mercury duality has been disproved centuries ago.

Perhaps it should be remarked that the alchemical theory was also a version of a more general theory of dualities. In the East, alchemist claimed to descent from the taoist school. In the West, they claimed to descent from the old atomic school. This can be surprising to some, because of the confusion between Dalton "new atomism" and Democritus "old atomism". The old atomism haven’t got a countability axiom, which is the basis of Dalton theory. Instead, they used a duality between matter and vacuum, very close to De Rham duality, and mostly suitable for geometric calculations². Also, Taoism and Atomism developed in the same chronological interval, and mutual influence can be suspected: Taoism yang/yin were identyfied with Democritus thing/no-thing, and the properties of the Tao were used to define the properties of the Atom. Old scholars recognized east-west contacts in the old atomic theory, and someones even claimed that Democritus was a disciple of the (religious) dualist Ostanes, while the genuine follower of Zeno was Leuccipus.