Chapt15.64 revamping all of Radioactivity theory, since antiparticles do not exist #1361 New Physics #1565 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Now am aware that the Standard Model of Old Physics covers the weak
nuclear interaction as well as EM, strong nuclear. But New Physics
throws out onto the trash pile all of the Standard Model. The Standard
Model had no rhyme or reasoning to it, just a bunch of cobbled
together bits and pieces of what some crank or crackpot in physics saw
as "cute mathematics". In New Physics we give rhyme and reason for any
physics and all of physics by the basic premiss-- the Maxwell
Equations as axioms over all of physics. So if some physics is not
supported by Maxwell Equations, for instance, the Higgs boson or black-
holes, well they are just crackpot pipe dreams.

But here I reached a problem of Radioactivity, in that the
antiparticles of physics are the same particle, only with a different
direction so that antiparticles such as the positron are really just
electrons. In other words, physics has no antiparticles, for they are
all the same particle as original given a different direction. Now
they do annihilate when a positron meets electron, but look at the end
product which is a photon/s, yet photons produce electron and positron
in pair production.

So we can revamp all of particle physics and improve it by insisting
that antiparticles are just the original particle with some direction
rearrangement.
So that in Hund's rule as we fill suborbitals with a pairing of two
electrons such as helium in the 1s2, those two electrons are electron
and positron as up and down electrons.

Now if we turn to Radioactivity of beta decay we immediately have
immense problems of the Standard Model theory. If we take the example
of
carbon-14 going into nitrogen-14 we have this Standard Model formula:

14C6 --> 14N7 + e- + v

and this formula for magnesium-23 decaying to sodium-23:

23Mg12 --> 23Na11 + e+ + v

Now when I was in college and reading and studying this kind of
science, the way I learned it was that in
carbon, the nucleus emitted a electron from one of its 8 neutrons and
that electron was captured by the 6 electrons of carbon so as to end
up as N with 7 electrons and 7 protons. And the way I learned
magnesium was that one of its 12 electrons ventured into the nucleus
and was captured by one of the 12 protons to form a neutron, leaving
11 electrons orbiting 12 neutrons and 11 protons. Now when I learned
that, I presumed that the e- was the electron capture by the electrons
and the e+ was electron capture by a proton in the nucleus.

But apparently that is not really the way the Standard Model sees
these two formulas. For the Standard Model really sees them as a like
picture of alpha particle decay where the electrons do not capture a
emitted alpha particle but rather a total ejection of the helium
nucleus and a possible capture of two electrons as it passes to and
beyond the electron cloud of the atom. So in the Standard Model, it is
difficult to see when particles of radioactive decay actually emit
particles outside the atom in question and when decay really is a
internal transfer of particles and nothing emitted outside that atom
in question. So we see in Old Physics there is a lot of obfuscation of
what is really going on and those formulas hide more than they reveal.
Especially the distinction between electron and positron.

In New Physics, whenever we write Beta decay with a positron involved,
it really is just a ordinary normal electron with a different
direction orientation. If all the normal electrons were spin up, then
a normal electron with spin down comes along and it is not some new
and different particle from an electron, but is a actual normal
electron whose spin is down, not up.

So that if a nucleus emits a electron that is captured by the electron
cloud then it is a normal electron denoted as e-. However, if the
nucleus grabs an electron orbiting in the atom cloud and combines it
with a proton to make a neutron, then it called a positron, for its
direction of spin is different from other electrons of that specific
atom in question.

So in New Physics, we need to revamp all of the Radioactivity decay
modes and the formulas so that antiparticles are none other than the
normal particle given a different direction.

--
Approximately 90 percent of AP's posts are missing in the Google
newsgroups author search starting May 2012. They call it indexing; I
call it censor discrimination. Whatever the case, what is needed now
is for science newsgroups like sci.physics, sci.chem, sci.bio,
sci.geo.geology, sci.med, sci.paleontology, sci.astro,
sci.physics.electromag to
be hosted by a University the same as what
Drexel
University hosts sci.math as the Math Forum. Science needs to
be in education
not in the hands of corporations chasing after the
next dollar bill.
Besides, Drexel's Math Forum can demand no fake
names, and only 5 posts per day, of all posters which reduces or
eliminates most spam and hate-spew, search-engine-bombing, and front-
page-hogging. Drexel has
done a excellent, simple and fair author-
archiving of AP sci.math posts since May 2012
as seen
here:

http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Now it is appalling that most physicists cannot even write a correct
and proper radioactivity formula. I pointed this out in psot of #1361
New Physics, but let me point it out in detail and what needs to be
done to correct the errors.

Now Wikipedia under Beta decay shows the two formulas of this:

14C6  --> 14N7 + e- + v

23Mg12 --> 23Na11 + e+ + v

Now if they really meant there to be a ejection of a electron of
carbon-14 then the true formula would have a negative sign on the N-14
to indicate it is a negative ion of nitrogen missing a electron, since
it has 7 protons but only 6 electrons. If they meant that the e- was
not totally ejected from carbon and nitrogen and was captured by
nitrogen, then it is really not a Beta decay emission and the formula
should be this:

14C6  --> 14N7 + v

The same sort of errors with the positron emission of
magnesium, where either a sodium ion remains or whether we omit the e+
since it remains inside that sodium atom.

Now in the textbook "Physics of the Atom" by Wehr, Richards, Adair
1985 on page 389, they make the same sort of mistakes.

They write

238U92 --> 234Th90 + 4He2

then they write

234Th90 --> 234Pa91 + e-

Now their first formula is correct, no problems because the 4He2 is
emitted out of the nucleus and out of the U atom so that the Th atom
and He atom are separated and that each has its full compliment of
electrons matching its number of protons. However, their second
formula is so error filled that you wonder if they ever took serious
mathematics.
Because if the e- is totally ejected out of the Th and Pa atom then
the Pa atom is missing an electron and is not 234Pa91 but rather is
(234Pa91-) to indicate Pa is a negative ion missing an electron and
having only 90 electrons.

Now Wikipedia talks about some electrons in Beta decay not ejecting
out of the daughter byproduct, but still, they need to clarify and not
obfuscate whether the daughter byproduct is a ion missing an electron
or whether the beta decay electron became part of the daughter
byproduct in electron capture and no outside the atom emission.

You see, it is mistakes like this that students in classrooms when
they come across those mistakes, they are not willing to tell the
teacher "hey, you made a mistake here" for fear of retribution on
grades.

--
Approximately 90 percent of AP's posts are missing in the Google
newsgroups author search starting May 2012. They call it indexing; I
call it censor discrimination. Whatever the case, what is needed now
is for science newsgroups like sci.physics, sci.chem, sci.bio,
sci.geo.geology, sci.med, sci.paleontology, sci.astro,
sci.physics.electromag to
be hosted by a University the same as what
Drexel
University hosts sci.math as the Math Forum. Science needs to
be in education
not in the hands of corporations chasing after the
next dollar bill.
Besides, Drexel's Math Forum can demand no fake

names, and only 5 posts per day of all posters which reduces or

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On May 13, 3:24 am, Archimedes Plutonium

<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Now it is appalling that most physicists cannot even write a correct
> and proper radioactivity formula. I pointed this out in psot of #1361

spelling error of "post" and corrected in original

> New Physics, but let me point it out in detail and what needs to be
> done to correct the errors.
>
> Now Wikipedia under Beta decay shows the two formulas of this:
>
> 14C6  --> 14N7 + e- + v
> 23Mg12 --> 23Na11 + e+ + v
>
> Now if they really meant there to be a ejection of a electron of
> carbon-14 then the true formula would have a negative sign on the N-14
> to indicate it is a negative ion of nitrogen missing a electron, since
> it has 7 protons but only 6 electrons. If they meant that the e- was

Now even I myself seems to not have this issue cleared up. I maybe
wrong and that I need a positive sign for an ion of N to indicate it
is missing an electron, since the overall atom of N has 1 more
positive charge of the extra proton and missing 7th electron.

> not totally ejected from carbon and nitrogen and was captured by
> nitrogen, then it is really not a Beta decay emission and the formula
> should be this:
>
> 14C6  --> 14N7 + v
>
> The same sort of errors with the positron emission of
> magnesium, where either a sodium ion remains or whether we omit the e+
> since it remains inside that sodium atom.
>

Now the positron emission is a tough one to conceptualize. I see it as
the nucleus capturing a orbital electron and that electron compounding
with a proton to form a neutron. So the number 14 stays the same
but the electron captured by sodium reduces the 12 count of electrons
to 11 count. Now if the magnesium emits that positron completely out
of the magnesium and sodium atom, then the sodium is missing an
electron and so should be a ion with a positive charge.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Most physicists cannot write a correct and proper radioactive decay
formula as I pointed out last night.

In Wikipedia they have two erroneous formulas of these two:

14C6  --> 14N7 + e- + v

23Mg12 --> 23Na11 + e+ + v

They are in error because the electron and positron are emitted out of
the carbon and nitrogen atoms and out of the magnesium and sodium
atoms. So the overall formula is in error for the nitrogen is missing
a electron and would have to be a N+
ion, and the sodium is missing an electron and would have to be a Na+
ion. The positron is only a electron that comes from another direction
wherein all antiparticles are merely directional original particle.
The antiproton is not a new independent particle but is merely a
normal proton with one of its directions opposite a normal proton. So
in New Physics we get rid of excess and erroneous baggage. If you look
in the Maxwell Equations, a different direction is merely the right
hand rule versus the left hand rule, and therein lies the function or
purpose of the photon as the symmetry and symmetry breaking, photon
==>
electron + positron, and electron + electron ==> electron + positron
==> photon.

And in the textbook "Physics of the Atom" by Wehr, Richards, Adair

1985 on page 389, they make the same sort of mistakes.
They write

238U92 --> 234Th90 + 4He2
then they write
234Th90 --> 234Pa91 + e-

The first formula is alright since we can envision the helium nucleus
picking up two electrons from U as it exits the Th atom. But if
experiments show the 4He2 to be a nucleus only and have to pick up
electrons outside the U and Th atom, then the formula has to have a
helium as a +2 ion and has to have Th as a -2 ion.

But in the case of Th going into Pa, the Pa atom is missing an
electron and so would have to be a Pa+ ion.

Now perhaps in all of this mess of a errors by physicists doing
radioactivity formulas, perhaps there is a proof that electrons in the
Hund's rule when they share a suborbital of 1 up electron and 1 down
electron means they are sharing of 1 electron with 1 positron and that
sharing further means the two electrons are after-all 1 gamma ray
photon. So in the Hund's Rule of sharing 2 electrons of a suborbital
means turning two electrons into a gamma ray photon. Now perhaps the
best place to prove the idea 2e- ==> 1e- + (1e+) ==> gamma ray photon
is in alpha particle decay, since a gamma ray photon is electrically
neutral, so that in the combination of e- joining with e+ we have a
time lapse of where 2 electrons went in the decay process.

Now radioactivity involves gamma rays. So are we to consider gamma
rays as the nucleus of a radioactive atom is emitting 2 electrons
where one of which converted to a positron and combined with the other
electron?

So what I am saying here is the misfortune of the editors of Wikipedia
or the misfortune of Adair, Richards, Wehr and all the other
physicists of the past 114 years by never giving a true correct
formula of radioactivity is to my benefit, for within that error, it
is highly likely that 2e- ==> 1e- + (1e+) ==> gamma ray photon.

What I am trying to say is that the reason no radioactivity Beta decay
formula was ever written correctly from 1899 to 2013 is because the
idea and realization that electrons become gamma ray photons when in
orbit around atoms was unknown in those 114 years.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On May 13, 2:22 pm, Archimedes Plutonium

Now there is a sweet and pretty resolution to the above problem of
formulas such as Wikipedia or Wehr, Richards, Adair. And the
resolution is that those formulas are correct and that no ion is
formed to compensate for the missing electron, because there is no
Beta decay but rather a photon gamma decay and in that decay there are
always two electrons.

So if we look at Wikipedias two formula:

14C6  --> 14N7 + e- + v
23Mg12 --> 23Na11 + e+ + v

They can be true if we had these beforehand and then the gamma ray
converts into two electrons that gives the Wikipedia formulas:

14C6  --> (14N7+) + gamma ray + v

23Mg12 --> (23Na11+) + gamma ray + v

Now for the two Wehr, Richards, Adair formulas:

238U92 --> 234Th90 + 4He2

234Th90 --> 234Pa91 + e-

If we had beforehand these two formulas:

238U92 --> 234Th90 + gamma ray + (4He2+2)

234Th90 --> (234Pa91+) + gamma ray

Where the gamma rays convert to 2 electrons.

So in Old Physics, they made a huge accounting error of a missing
electron in most every formula of radioactive decay. And they never
accounted for the fact that these would be ions as byproducts if the
Beta decay occurred. But to resolve the missing electron or electrons
in the case of alpha particles, is to realize that in radioactive
decay only alpha particles and gamma rays comprise radioactive decay
and the gamma ray splits into two electrons.

So we never had Beta decay but rather it was a Gamma Ray decay. Now
that would also give evidence that proton radioactive decay is never
observed because all decays involve a gamma ray and that means we have
1 proton with 2 electrons in a decay and that is asymmetry. We can
have 2 protons and 2 neutrons with 2 electrons (gamma ray) but not 1
proton with 2 electrons (gamma ray).

Now I wonder if this theory that 2 electrons in a suborbital convert
to a gamma ray, whether it explains the Metallic bond with its
conduction band electrons far more easily than the Old Physics of
conduction band electrons.

One thing is very sure, indeed, is the gamma ray being two electrons
explains superconductivity as being a Malus Law with an Ohm law far
better than without gamma rays. I say this because the Malus Law is a
law involving photons rather than electrons, but if 2 electrons
together pair to become a gamma ray, then we have the Malus law 100%.

But now, in the Metallic Bond with its sea of electrons, are we really
already dealing with photons rather than electrons because electrons
repel each other as they get closer to one another, but if 2 electrons
convert to being a gamma ray photon, then they form a "sea" or
"pooling together" which is called the Superposition Principle.

So this new theory that electrons of 1 up spin and another 1 down spin
in a Hund's Rule suborbital is really 2 electrons converting into a 1
gamma ray photon explains very much the loose ends and errors of Old
Physics of the last 114 years.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Now I am trying to correlate the abundance of gamma rays with the
number of radioactivity events.

A good website of information is this report:

--- quoting from http://radiationcenter.oregonstate.edu/Research/Research%20home.html

Using 24Na as an example, when it decays to stable 24Mg, gamma rays
having energies of 1368.53 and 2754.09 kilo-electron volts (keV) are
released. If these gamma rays enter a suitable detector, their energy
can be converted to an electrical signal that is processed as a count
in an energy spectrum. The accumulation of gamma counts at a
particular energy will generate a curve, the area of which is
proportional to the radioactivity of the characteristic radionuclide.
--- end quoting

Now another feature of radioactivity that is seldom given any
attention or recognition is that in all forms of radioactivity whether
alpha particles, neutron decay, Beta particles, electron capture,
spontaneous fission, that there is gamma rays involved. So that given
any radioactivity event, there is gamma rays involved and that fact
has never been delved into and given importance.

I need to review free neutron decay to see the involvement of gamma
rays.

Now in astronomy we are aware of gamma rays being all around us, yet
no viable source for those gamma rays. Well, perhaps the reason of the
abundance of gamma rays is that what we previously thought of as Beta
decay, was in fact gamma decay instead.