my mistakes on neutron and proton emissions Chapt15.64 revamping all of Radioactivity theory, since antiparticles do not exist #1371 New Physics #1577 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

[Archimedes Plutonium]

In #1370 New Physics I made some gross mistakes:

> 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 I make mistakes like anyone else. The free neutron decay is not
radioactivity decay for that requires an atom for radioactivity decay.
Otherwise we would list all particles that cascade down to their final
end products.

But there is a neutron emission of radioactivity decay. I need to find
out if gamma rays are involved in neutron emission.

Also, there appears to be proton emission and double proton emission,
which is news to me. And a gamma ray is involved if the energy is
lower than the separation-energy. So I made a mistake with proton
decay in my earlier posts.

So I better back-off here from the idea that gamma rays are involved
with all radioactivity. And simply say that gamma rays are involved in
all Beta radioactivity. Otherwise the end products would be ions,
positively charged ions and yet the endproducts are not ions but full
atoms.

And gamma rays likely follow all alpha decays, for otherwise the
parent atom would be +2 ion and they are not ions.

What I am correcting in physics is the fact that endproducts in Beta
decay are ions and the formulas do not show them as ions nor do the
experiments. So that means that Beta decay must involve two electrons,
one of which converted to a positron.

So in the Hund's rule of electrons sharing suborbitals, those two
electrons are now a gamma ray revolving around the nucleus.

So in a sense, atoms are devices that turn two electrons into one
converting to a positron and then the two combining to form a gamma
ray.

The best proof of that picture is that such is the only way in which
we can reconcile that a electron with 0.5 rest mass orbits with
perpetual motion, yet the only particle to have perpetual motion is
the photon because it has 0 rest mass. So a hydrogen atom, all alone
and by itself has a single electron and it does not have perpetual
motion, but if it combines with another hydrogen atom, forming the
molecule H2, then those two electrons can have perpetual motion.

So if all of Physics is derived by the Maxwell Equations, they would
say that perpetual motion occurs if and only if there is zero rest
mass. So that electrons in unpaired suborbitals cannot survive in
perpetuity, unless they combine in a chemical bond. So here we have
where Physics meets Chemistry. That we must have chemical bonds
because otherwise atoms would fall apart of its single lonesome
electrons. Chemical Bonds exist in order to rescue all single lonesome
electrons, by turning the two electrons, one into a positron and thus
the electron plus positron becomes a gamma ray. So that in Nature, if
we were to look inside a helium atom of its two electrons, we would
see a gamma ray photon, not two electrons. And if we were to look
inside a single isolated hydrogen atom we would see a single electron
but the atom is falling apart because that single electron has rest
mass and would fall into the nucleus. How much time does it have
before it falls? Not sure at the moment. But if the single hydrogen
atom were to meet up with another single hydrogen atom, the two would
rescue each others electron and form a gamma ray orbiting two proton
nuclei and 0 rest mass so the electrons would revolve forever.

Now in my laying out the above picture, I thought of a means of
proving that to be true. If the single hydrogen atom electron is not
rescued in time before it falls into the proton nucleus, and that
would be what is called Bremsstrahlung radiation or braking radiation.
So here is another thing I have to look up to refresh myself. Can you
have bremsstrahlung with helium atoms? Can you have bremsstrahlung
with single hydrogen atoms?

Now a question comes to mind whether we can produce single unbonded
hydrogen atoms and how long can we keep them unbonded? Probably not
long at all.

--

More than 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