nuclear binding energy derived from Maxwell Equations and predicting iron Chapt13.3 Maxwell Equations as axioms over all physics and chemistry #376 New Physics #496 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Alright, a great prediction of Maxwell Equations would be what the
nucleus
and nuclear-strong-force is. And that prediction is that the Maxwell
Equations, of the Faraday law says the nucleus is a permanent bar
magnet composed of protons and electrons in a crystal array.

Let me begin with Old Physics notion of binding energy:

--- quoting Wikipedia on nuclear binding energy ---
Determining nuclear binding energy

Calculation can be employed to determine the nuclear binding energy of
nuclei. The calculation uses three general steps:[2]
Determining the mass defect
Conversion of mass defect into energy
Expressing nuclear binding energy as energy per mole of atoms, or as
energy per nucleon.
[edit]Conversion of mass defect into energy
Mass defect is defined as the difference between the mass of a
nucleus, and the sum of the masses of the nucleons of which it is
composed. The mass defect is determined by calculating three
quantities.[2] These are: the actual mass of the nucleus, the
composition of the nucleus (number of protons and of neutrons), and
the masses of a proton and of a neutron. This is then followed by
converting the mass defect into energy. This quantity is the nuclear
binding energy, however it must be expressed as energy per mole of
atoms or as energy per nucleon.[2]

--- end quoting ---

In the textbook Physics of the Atom, 4th ed, Wehr, Richards, Adair,
1984
on pages 441 through 444 goes through such calculations to determine
the
nuclear binding energy where they discuss the Q-value as to whether
positive or negative. And on page 443 shows a graph plotting the
Potential Energy relative to complete separation of protons and
neutrons where it shows that Iron Fe-56 is stable to both fission and
fusion.

Now this is theoretically important of the data and fact of iron being
stable to both fission and fusion and that beyond iron all is fission
and below iron, all is fusion.

But, there is no theory that tells us iron is the one that behaves
like this, and no theory that predicts iron to be this special
element, until now, in using the Maxwell Equations as the axiom set
over all of physics, do we
predict by theory alone that iron is this special element.

Alright, we have only the 6 Maxwell Equations (including Lenz's law
and Dirac Equation and where the Maxwell Equations are the symmetrical
Maxwell Equations. We ask ourselves with these 6 axioms we must have a
Unification of Forces of physics because we have only these 6 axioms
and they are EM forces only, so that means all the forces are some
form of EM. So how do we see the Strong Nuclear force as a form of
Maxwell EM? The answer is quite simple and easy. Because with magnetic
monopoles, the neutron inside a nucleus must transform into 1proton,
1nuclear-electron and 1neutrino-electron and the difference between a
neutrino-electron and a normal ordinary electron is that the neutrino-
electron has -1 magnetic-charge, not a -1 electric-charge.

That means the nucleus of every atom, possible exception of hydrogen,
must be the
"thrust bar magnet" that appears in the Faraday Law. Or, it must be
the
moving electric current that appears in Ampere/Maxwell Law. But here
focus on Faraday Law and bar magnet.

Have you ever wondered why iron is so special with magnetism? Have you
ever wondered why it is called ferromagnetism and why iron is so
involved with magnetism? Well, the answer also tells us why Fe-56 is
stable to both fission and fusion and marks a extremely important
point in
the Periodic Table.

So if the axioms that derives all of Physics are the 6 Maxwell Axioms,
then there must be a "thrust bar magnet" for every atom in existence
and that bar magnet is the Nucleus of every atom. Now that "bar
magnet" is not the type of bar magnet of what we normally see in the
magnets we have around the home and laboratory, but is a atomic
nucleus that becomes a Faraday magnet and it is composed of a crystal
that is an array of purely protons and one of three types of
electrons:

(1) shell electrons
(2) nuclear-electrons (those electrons begot from the transforming of
a neutron)
(3) neutrino-electrons (the neutrino inside a neutron transforms to a
neutrino-electron when inside a nucleus)

The bar magnets we have at home and in the laboratory are made of
atoms of iron and other atoms in a crystal array, cubic crystal array
of atoms where the electron spins are aligned to give us a magnetic
field.

In every nucleus of every atom, excepting hydrogen, the nucleus is a
crystal array, perhaps cubic array of protons and electrons that forms
a
nuclear-bar-magnet.

The electron shells are the closed loop wire of Faraday's Law, and so
as you watch a NOVA tv show of "Hunting the Elements" by David Pogue
where they show an atom nucleus as a collection of round balls for
oxygen
and 8 lighted up zipping around balls of electrons is a rather error
filled view of what an atom looks like. A better view is to think of
the nucleus of an atom as a crystal array of large round balls as
protons and of tiny round balls as electrons and for Oxygen we have 16
protons and 24 electrons as a magnetic bar array in cubic form. And as
for the electron shells, they are
8 closed loop wires, or 8 pathways for the 1s2 2s2 2p4.

With the Maxwell Equations as axioms, the time spent by the shell-
electrons is mostly time spent in the nucleus forming that bar magnet
array and little time actually moving in that pathway of the shell.

So here is a partial list of what the Maxwell Equations as the axioms
over all of physics predicts:

(1) all forces are EM and explained and derived by EM

(2) in order to satisfy the Faraday Law, the nucleus of an atom,
excepting perhaps hydrogen in the gas state but perhaps not in the
liquid and solid state, must have a nucleus composed of protons and
electrons in a magnet bar cubic array

(3) shell electrons spend most of their time in the nucleus and when
not in the nucleus they are on their closed loop wire which composes a
electron-shell

(4) electron shell is a closed loop wire pathway and not some
spherical shell. In fact Lines of Force as seen with a bar magnet
under a sheet of paper with iron filings is many lines of force. Each
of those lines of force is one electron pathway, not one electron
shell.

(5) so our new view of electrons in electron shells is that of a
closed loop wire for which the electron is residing in the nucleus and
only going out traveling on its pathway in special circumstances.

(6) the Maxwell Equations predict that iron is this special element
stable to fusion and fission because iron is ferromagnetism or is
permanent-magnetism.

So, never before in physics did we have a theory of physics that
predicts iron to be that special element, until now, when we have the
theory that the Maxwell Equations are the axioms over all of physics
and that Faraday's law then demands iron to be special.

P.S. now I am troubled by the exception of hydrogen for that deuterium
obeys the Faraday law by its nucleus being a bar-magnet. So maybe I
can
get rid of this exception by saying that the hydrogen atom of 1 proton
1 electron is not really an atom at all but a subatomic particle and
that the first element of the Periodic Table is deuterium with its
1proton, 1neutron and 1electron. In mathematics we have a similar
situation where 1 is neither prime nor is it composite. The number 1
is special towards the axioms in that it is a "unit" in mathematics.
So here in physics we have a similar situation where hydrogen is not
an atom at all but a subatomic particle and where the atoms start with
deuterium. Perhaps there are other features of hydrogen that can
demarcate further that hydrogen is not really an atom. Such as the
idea that a neutron is not an atom, even though when it decays in
about 15 minutes time to that of a hydrogen atom with neutrino. So
that if we consider a neutron not to be an atom, why should we
consider a hydrogen particle to be an atom?

So that the Periodic Chart of Chemical Elements needs to have the
restrictive limitation that every atom must by in possession of a
neutron in order to be an atom.

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]

On Apr 7, 1:31 pm, Archimedes Plutonium

Let me talk some more about the Nucleus of every atom as a cubic bar-
magnet
array of protons and electrons.

I suppose hydrogen atom can have a Faraday bar magnet nucleus for its
single
electron can form a bar magnet with the single proton.

But let me pry deeper into nucleus as a bar magnet crystal. When I
think of crystal
I think of some pointed edges like in a cube or some pointed corner.
When I think of
crystal, I do not envision a round surface. Now in the NOVA "Hunting
the Elements"
by David Pogue, they showed the nucleus as a rounded surface with
round balls as protons and neutrons and electrons zipping around as
round balls. That was a horrible picture of
nuclei and electrons in shells. But to credit to NOVA in "Hunting the
Elements" they showed
an excellent picture of why electricity is a flow of electrons in a
lattice array of the metallic bond where the electrons use the atoms
and nuclei as sort of like a "free highway" to flow.

So that if we use the Maxwell Axioms that demands the nucleus of an
atom be a crystal
array of a Faraday bar magnet where the protons and electrons form a
crystal lattice array
then we can expect pointed edges and pointed corners. Now that is
important because if we can expect pointed edges and corners we can
expect weakness of the lattice array, whereas if we expect the nucleus
to be fully round in shape we cannot expect weakness.

So if we can expect corners and edges we can expect differences in the
strong-nuclear-force
so that a corner or edge of a rock over time that the environmental
forces wears down the corners and edges making a pointed rock into a
round rock. Likewise for the nucleus in that a pointed edge or corner
of a nucleus-Faraday-bar-magnet would be perceptible in observations.

So that if we fire electrons or neutrons into a nuclei that has
corners or edges we should be able to determine a "Nuclear Crystal
Lattice of a Atom Nucleus".

If an electron makes up a corner of a nucleus, it is likely to be
unstable there and may decay into a beta decay of that nucleus, or if
the corner is 4protons and 2electrons that corner would decay into a
alpha particle and be emitted out of the nucleus.

So here we begin to see a orderly explanation of the Weak Nuclear
Force that corners and edges of a crystal lattice array of protons and
electrons in Cubic form or some other form that has corners or edges
will likely explain Weak Nuclear Force as a patterned array.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Apr 7, 2:35 pm, Archimedes Plutonium

That was an avoidable mistake on my part, for I needed uncharged
firing particles
like photons fired into nuclei to get a picture of whether the nuclei
are arranged in
cubic or some nonspherical array.

I think that many observations over the past century have been made on
atomic
nuclei and I wonder if anyone has come to a conclusion that the nuclei
of atoms
are some sort of Cubic array or non-spherical array that has many
edges and corners?

If we have evidence of these corners and edges, we have proof that
nuclei of atoms
are Faraday-permanent-bar-magnets.

And the importance of corners and edges is that they then begin to
predict Weak Nuclear
Force of when and how an atom decays into beta and alpha particles.

> If an electron makes up a corner of a nucleus, it is likely to be
> unstable there and may decay into a beta decay of that nucleus, or if
> the corner is 4protons and 2electrons that corner would decay into a
> alpha particle and be emitted out of the nucleus.
>
> So here we begin to see a orderly explanation of the Weak Nuclear
> Force that corners and edges of a crystal lattice array of protons and
> electrons in Cubic form or some other form that has corners or edges
> will likely explain Weak Nuclear Force as a patterned array.
>