This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 299)
John Baez
June 12, 2010
This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 299)
John Baez
Two weeks ago I went to Oxford to attend a school on Quantum
Information and Computer Science, and then a workshop on Quantum
Physics and Logic. So, I'll start by telling you about those.
I'll show you where you can see videos of the talks! You can learn
about string diagrams and Frobenius algebras, and see how people use
these in quantum physics. You can even see a program called
"Quantomatic", which automatically carries out string diagram
computations. And then I'll tell you about Aaron Fenyes' no-cloning
theorem for classical mechanics. There was a lot more to the
conference than this, but that's all I have the energy for.
Why? Well, after I came home, my friend the combinatorist Bill
Schmitt paid me a visit. He told me a lot of interesting stuff about
about "pre-Lie algebras". These are algebraic gadgets with deep
connections to trees, operads, and the work of Connes and Kreimer on
renormalization in quantum field theory. So, I want to tell you about
that stuff, too.
Let's get started. You can see all the talks here:
1) Oxford Quantum Talks Archive,
http://www.comlab.ox.ac.uk/quantum/content/
I've been using pictures called "string diagrams" for a long time here
on This Week's Finds, and I've tried to explain them, but these talks
give a nice systematic treatment:
2) Introduction to monoidal categories and graphical calculus.
Lecture 1 by Chris Heunen, available at
http://www.comlab.ox.ac.uk/quantum/content/1005005/
Lecture 2 by Jamie Vicary, available at
http://www.comlab.ox.ac.uk/quantum/content/1005010/
With the help of these diagrams we can think about many, many things.
In particular, we can use them to describe processes in quantum
mechanics. Feynman diagrams are an example. But now people in
quantum information theory are using them in very different ways. For
example, they're using them to study "classical structures" in quantum
mechanics.
What's a classical structure? The basic idea is simple. You can't
"clone a quantum". In other words, you can't build a "quantum copying
machine" where you feed in a quantum system in an arbitrary state and
have two identical copies pop out, both in the same state.
Why not? Well, you could try to measure everything about your system
and make a copy where all those measurements have the same values.
But you can never succeed! Measuring one thing will change the values
of other things you already measured, in uncontrollable random ways.
So you can never know everything about your system... not all at once!
So, it's impossible to make an exact copy.
However, sometimes measuring one thing does *not* mess up the value
of something else you measured. Quantities that get along this way are
called "commuting observables". A "classical structure" is a set of
commuting observables that's as big as possible. And for each
classical structure, we can build a copying machine that works for
*these* observables.
For example, there's no way to take an electron, stick it in a copying
machine, and duplicate everything about it. You can measure the spin
of an electron along any axis. If you measure the spin along the x
axis you get one of two results: "up" or "down". Similarly for the
spin along the y axis. However, measuring the spin along the x
axis messes up its spin along the y axis.
So, you can build a machine that takes an electron, measures its spin
along the x axis, and spits out two electrons in that same state:
either "spin-up" or "spin-down" along the x axis. But if you put an
electron with spin up along the y axis in this machine, it will not be
correctly duplicated.
In this example, there's a classical structure consisting of the spin
along the x axis, and every function of this observable... but this
classical structure does *not* include the spin along the y axis.
Here's a quick sketch of how the math works. If you're a
mathematician, this should be far less confusing than the prose you
just suffered through. In fact, you may be left wondering why I
turned such simple math into such murky prose. But that's typical
of quantum mechanics: the math is crystal clear, but when you try
to explain how it describes the real world, it starts sounding mysterious.
Suppose H is a Hilbert space. If we were trying to build a quantum
copying machine, it would be nice to have a linear operator like this:
H -> H tensor H
psi |-> psi tensor psi
But this operator is not linear, because doubling psi would quadruple
psi tensor psi.
Life gets easier when we have a classical structure. An "observable"
in quantum mechanics is a self-adjoint operator. So, a "classical
structure" is a maximal set of commuting self-adjoint operators. If
H is finite-dimensional, we can get any classical structure from an
orthonormal basis. How? Just take all the self-adjoint operators
that are diagonal in that basis.
If you pick an orthonormal basis for H, say e_i, there's a unique
linear operator that duplicates states in that basis:
H -> H tensor H
e_i |-> e_i tensor e_i
So, this is how a classical structure gives a "duplication operator".
Here's where the string diagrams come in. We can draw our duplication
operator in a funny symbolic way like this:
_______
/ \
| |
| |
| |
|\_______/|
| |
| |
| |
| |
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ _ \
/ / \ \
/..... / \ .....\
/ ` / \ ' \
/ `/ \' \
| | | |
| | | |
\ / \ /
\______/ \______/
This is a picture of a 2d surface where one circle comes in and two
go out - a kind of metaphor for duplication. We'll see why it's a
good metaphor in a minute.
There's another thing we can do after we've picked an orthonormal
basis for our Hilbert space H: we can define a "deletion operator"
H -> C
e_i |-> 1
which sends each state in the basis to the number 1. Here C is the
complex numbers, a 1-dimensional Hilbert space. We can think of C
as a kind of "garbage bin", and think of our operator as "throwing out"
states in our basis. We can draw it as a cup-shaped thing, like this:
_______
/ \
| |
| |
| |
|\_______/|
| |
| |
| |
| |
\ /
\_____/
This is not really a picture of a garbage bin, though it looks like
that too. It's a picture of a 2d surface where one circle comes in
and *none* go out!
Now, the cool part is that our duplication and deletion operators
satisfy rules that look very intuitive in terms of these pictures.
For example, if we duplicate a state and then delete one copy, it's
the same as not having done anything at all:
_______ ________
/ \ / \
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|\_______/| |\________/|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
/ \ | |
/ \ | |
/ \ | |
/ \ = | |
/ _ \ | |
/ / \ \ | |
/ / \ \ | |
/ / \ \ | |
/ / \ \ | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
\ / | | | |
\ / | ..... | | ..... |
\____/ | ' ` | | ' ` |
|' `| |' `|
| | | |
\ / \ /
\______/ \______/
This rule is "topologically true": we can take the first picture
and wiggle it and warp it until it looks like the second one.
There are a bunch of other rules. Almost all of them are topologically
true - exactly what you'd dream up by playing around with pictures of
2d surfaces. But to write down these rules, you need to notice that
any operator between Hilbert spaces has an adjoint going the other
way. So, besides duplication
H -> H tensor H
we have its adjoint
H tensor H -> H
which we draw just like duplication, except upside-down:
______ ______
/ \ / \
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|\______/| |\______/|
| | | |
| | | |
\ \ / /
\ \ / /
\ \_/ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
| |
| |
| ....... |
|' `|
| |
| |
\ /
\_______/
and besides deletion
H -> C
we have its adjoint
C -> H
which we draw just like deletion, except upside-down:
_____
/ \
/ \
| |
| |
| |
| |
| ....... |
|' `|
| |
| |
\ /
\_______/
In math we call these four operators the "multiplication":
m: H tensor H -> H
the "unit":
i: C -> H
the "comultiplication":
Delta: H -> H tensor H
and the "counit":
e: H -> C
And we can summarize all the rules these operators obey by saying that
H is a "special commutative dagger-Frobenius algebra". That's a
mouthful, but as I said, almost all these rules come from topologically
allowed manipulations on 2d surfaces. For example, here's why
multiplication is commutative:
__ __ __ __
/ \ / \ / \ / \
| | | | | | | |
|\__/| |\__/| |\__/| |\__/|
| | | | | | | |
\ \/ / | | | |
\ /` / | | | |
\ / ` / \ \ / /
/ /\ \ \ / /
/ ` / \ \ \_/ /
/ `/ \ \ /
/ /\ \ \ /
| / \ | \ /
| \__/ | = | |
\ / | |
\ / | |
\ / | |
| | | |
| | | |
| ... | | ... |
|' `| |' `|
| | | |
\___/ \___/
What are all these rules? Well, back in "week268" I defined special
commutative Frobenius algebras. So, if you go back and read that, the
only extra thing you need to learn today is what's a
"dagger-Frobenius" algebra. And that's just a Frobenius algebra
that's also a Hilbert space, where the multiplication and unit are
adjoint to the comultiplication and counit. For more, try these
papers:
3) Bob Coecke and Dusko Pavlovic, Quantum measurements without sums,
in The Mathematics of Quantum Computation and Technology, eds. Chen,
Kauffman and Lomonaco, Chapman and Hall/CRC, New York, pp. 559-596.
Also available as arXiv:quant-ph/0608035.
4) Jamie Vicary, Categorical formulation of quantum algebras,
available as arXiv:0805.0432.
5) Bob Coecke, Dusko Pavlovic and Jamie Vicary, A new description of
orthogonal bases, available as arXiv:0810.0812
But what's really going on with all these pictures of 2d surfaces? You
see them a lot in topological quantum field theory. Indeed, in
"week268" I explained that a commutative Frobenius algebra is exactly
what we need to get a 2d topological quantum field theory, or TQFT for
short. This is a way of making precise the idea that any of these
pictures gives a well-defined operator - and warping or wiggling the
picture doesn't change the operator.
Even better, a commutative dagger-Frobenius algebra is exactly what we
need to get a "unitary" 2d TQFT. This means that the upside-down
version of a given picture gives the adjoint operator.
So, we're seeing a curious fact:
A CLASSICAL STRUCTURE ON A FINITE-DIMENSIONAL HILBERT SPACE
GIVES A UNITARY 2D TQFT
This sounds like it should be important, because it links two subjects
with very different flavors: the foundations of quantum mechanics, and
topological quantum field theory. But I have no idea what it really
means.
Maybe you can help me! But before you try your hand at this problem,
I should warn you that we don't get *all* unitary 2d TQFTs from
classical structures - because we don't get *all* commutative
dagger-Frobenius algebras. We only get the "special" ones, which obey
this extra rule:
___ ___
/ \ / \
| | | |
|\___/| |\___/|
| | | |
| | | |
/ \ | |
/ \ | |
/ __ \ | |
| / \ | | |
| \__/ | = | |
\ / | |
\ / | |
\ / | |
| | | |
| | | |
| ... | | ... |
|' `| |' `|
| | | |
\___/ \___/
This rule is *not* topologically true. Indeed when it holds, our 2d
TQFT is completely insensitive to how many handles our surface has.
That makes it sort of boring.
For a closed surface, the number of handles is called the "genus".
So, the real puzzle is to understand this more mysterious slogan:
A CLASSICAL STRUCTURE ON A FINITE-DIMENSIONAL HILBERT
SPACE IS THE SAME AS A *GENUS-INDEPENDENT* UNITARY 2D TQFT
I've been mulling this over for about a year now, with no great
insights. Mathematically it's almost trivial. But physically,
I can't tell if it's the tip of an interesting iceberg, or just
a coincidence.
These talks offered some extra clues:
6) Ross Duncan, Convexity, categorical semantics and the foundations
of physics, video available at
http://www.comlab.ox.ac.uk/quantum/content/1005102/
7) Chris Heunen, Complementarity in categorical quantum mechanics,
video and slides available at
http://www.comlab.ox.ac.uk/quantum/content/1005115/
8) Simon Perdrix, Classical-quantum graphical calculus, video
available at http://www.comlab.ox.ac.uk/quantum/content/1005015/
For more details, try these papers:
9) Bob Coecke, Eric Oliver Paquette and Dusko Pavlovic,
Classical and quantum structuralism, available as arXiv:0904.1997.
10) Bob Coecke and Ross Duncan, Interacting quantum observables:
categorical algebra and diagrammatics, available as arXiv:0906.4725.
11) Bob Coecke, Quantum picturalism, available as arXiv:0908.1787.
12) Bob Coecke and Simon Perdrix, Environment and classical channels
in categorical quantum mechanics, arXiv/1004.1598.
Among other things, these papers say what you can *do* with a
classical structure. You can do a bunch of things - and you can do
them all very generally, because you can do them using just pictures.
So, you don't need to be working in the category of finite-dimensional
Hilbert spaces: any "dagger-compact category" will do. You can define
a special commutative dagger-Frobenius algebra in any such category,
and this gives a very general concept of classical structure.
This is the sort of thing that makes category theorists drool. But I
will restrain myself! I won't work in such generality. I'll just
work with finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces, and just sketch a few
things we can do with classical structures. I won't even explain how
we can do them just using pictures... even though that's the really
cool part.
For starters, every classical structure determines a "phase group".
If the classical structure comes from an orthonormal basis in the way
I've described, its phase group consists of all unitary operators that
are diagonal in this basis. But the cool part is that we can define
this group just using pictures, and prove it's abelian, and so on.
We can also use pictures to define "complementarity". In physics we
say position and momentum are complementary observables because if you
know everything about one, you know nothing about the other. But we
can also say what it means for two classical structures to be
complementary. For a finite-dimensional Hilbert space, any classical
structure comes from an orthonormal basis - and two of them are
"complementary" if they come from "mutually unbiased" bases, meaning
bases e_i and f_j such that
|<e_i,f_j>|
is independent of i and j. This means that if you know precisely
which state e_i your system is in, it has equal chances of being
found in any of the states f_j.
So, for example, the spin-up and spin-down states of an electron as
measured along the x axis form one orthonormal basis. The spin-up and
spin-down states as measured along the y axis form another. And these
bases are mutually unbiased. So, knowing everything about the spin
along the x axis tells you nothing about its spin along the y axis.
And vice versa!
When we have two complementary classical structures, we get two ways
of making our Hilbert space into a Frobenius algebra. And these are
related in a cool way: if we use the multiplication of the first, and
the comultiplication of the second, we almost get a "bialgebra"! If
we had a bialgebra, this relation would hold:
| | \ /
|\ /| \ /
| \ / | \ /
| \ / | \ /
| \ | = |
| / \ | / \
| / \ | / \
|/ \| / \
| | / \
where I'm writing the multiplication of our first Frobenius algebra
like this:
\ /
\ /
|
|
and the comultiplication of the second like this:
|
|
/ \
/ \
But in fact this equation holds only up to a constant factor, so we
get a "scaled bialgebra". I think this is fascinating because there's
a constant interplay between Frobenius algebras and bialgebras in
mathematics, and here's yet another example.
Now, if you like these pictures, you've got to see "Quantomatic" in
action:
13) Lucas Dixon, Quantomatic demo, video available at
http://www.comlab.ox.ac.uk/quantum/content/1005019
14) Lucas Dixon, Ross Duncan, Aleks Kissinger and Alex Merry,
Quantomatic, http://dream.inf.ed.ac.uk/projects/quantomatic/
This is a program that automatically carries out calculations
involving these pictures that I've been drawing! It's a lot of fun.
If you know quantum computation, you'll see that we can describe a lot
of quantum logic gates, like controlled not gates and Hadamard gates,
using these pictures. And if you know 2-categories, you'll realize
that the *processes of rewriting diagrams* are actually 2-morphisms in
a 2-category! So higher category is sneaking in to the subject here.
I bet we'll see a lot more of it in years to come.
There were many more interesting talks, but I'm running out of energy,
so I just want to say one more thing about "cloning":
15) Aaron Fenyes, There's no cloning in symplectic mechanics,
available at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/dual/no-cloning.pdf
This paper argues that the laws of classical mechanics make it
impossible to build a "cloning machine". If we had such a machine, we
could put two boxes with balls in them into slots on top of the
machine. The machine would copy the position and velocity of the
first ball over to the second one. When we were done, the second ball
would be a "clone" of the first: a perfect copy.
Let me be a bit more precise. The boxes and the balls inside them
are identically made. The first ball, the one we want to clone, has
an arbitrary position and velocity. Well, of course its position is
somewhere in the box! And if you like, we can say it's going no faster
than 10 miles per hour. The second ball starts out in some fixed
state. Let's say it has zero velocity and it's sitting right in a
little dent in the middle of the box.
We pop the boxes into the machine. The machine can open the tops of
the boxes and insert sensors. When we press a big red button, the
machine measures the position and velocity of the first ball. It
then does whatever it wants, but after a while two boxes come out
of the bottom of the machines... and then a bell rings.
And when the bell rings, both balls have the same position and
velocity that the first ball had when you pressed the button!
A "no-cloning theorem" says you can't build a machine like this, given
some assumptions on the laws of physics. The original no-cloning
theorem was due to Wooters and Zurek:
16) W. K. Wootters and H. D. Zurek, A single quantum cannot be cloned,
Nature, 299 (1982), 802-803.
You can see a statement and proof here:
17) Wikipedia, No-cloning theorem,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-cloning_theorem
This was a *quantum* no-cloning theorem. In fact it was very general:
it wasn't about balls in boxes, it was about *any* quantum system
where states are described by unit vectors in a Hilbert space and
processes are described by unitary operators.
There have been many no-cloning theorems since then, but what's new
about Aaron Fenyes' result is that it applies to *classical* mechanics.
Again, it's very general: it's about any classical system where states
are described by points in a symplectic manifold, and processes are
described by symplectomorphisms.
If that sounds scary, well, be reassured that most classical mechanics
problems fit into this framework. There are some that can't, but I bet
Fenyes' result can be generalized to cover a lot of those, too.
So, the big question is: how does this result square with the widely
shared intuition that we *can* copy classical information: that we
*can* exactly measure the position and momentum of a ball, say, and
get two balls into that state?
I don't know the answer, but I'd like to - so let me know if you
figure it out. Part of the problem is that when we use phrases like
"classical structure" in our study of quantum mechanics, we are *not*
talking about full-fledged classical mechanics, in which symplectic
structures are important. But even after we work through this
semantic issue, there's a physics issue left to ponder.
After I got back to Riverside, my friend Bill Schmitt visited me. As
usual, we spent long evenings listening to music and talking about
math. I told you about our last get-together in "week265". Back
then, he told me about an amazing 588-page paper on Hopf algebras,
combinatorics and category theory. By now that paper has grown into
an 836-page book:
18) Marcelo Aguiar and Swapneel Mahajan, Monoidal functors, species
and Hopf algebras, available at http://www.math.tamu.edu/~maguiar/a.pdf
In his preface, Andre Joyal calls it "a quantum leap towards the
mathematics of the future". Check it out!
Now Bill is working with Aguiar on developing this theory further.
There are some marvelous ideas here... but I'd rather tell you about
something else: pre-Lie algebras.
The name "pre-Lie algebra" suggests that we're about to do some
"centipede mathematics". That's the cruel sport where you take a
mathematical concept and see how many legs you can pull off and have
it still walk. For example: you take the concept of group, remove
the associative law and the identity element, obtaining the concept
of "quasigroup"... and then see if there are still any theorems left.
A "pre-Lie algebra" sounds like a Lie algebra with some legs pulled
off. But actually it's an *associative* algebra with some legs pulled
off! Any associative algebra gives a Lie algebra - but you don't
need the full force of the associative law to play this game. It's
enough to have pre-Lie algebra.
That doesn't sound too interesting. But Bill convinced me that
pre-Lie algebras are important. They were first named by Gerstenhaber:
19) M. Gerstenhaber, The cohomology structure of an associative ring,
Ann. Math. 78 (1963), 267-288.
who showed that the Hochschild chain complex of any ring, with grading
shifted down by one, is a graded pre-Lie algebra. Later it was
noticed that pre-Lie algebras show up in the combinatorics of trees,
and are implicit in this old paper by Cayley:
20) Arthur Cayley, On the theory of the analytical forms called trees,
Phil. Mag. 13 (1857), 172-176.
The fun really starts when we relate these ideas to quantum field
theory and operads...
...but first things first! The definition is simple enough. A
pre-Lie algebra is a vector space A equipped with a bilinear product
such that
[L(a), L(b)] = L([a,b])
for every a, b in A.
Huh? Here L(a) stands for left multiplication by a:
L(a) b = ab
and the brackets denote commutators, so
[L(a), L(b)] = L(a) L(b) - L(b) L(a)
and
[a,b] = ab - ba
Putting together these formulas, we see the a pre-Lie algebra is
vector space equipped with a bilinear product satisfying this
scary equation:
a(bc) - b(ac) = (ab)c - (ba)c
Now, it's obvious that every associative algebra is a pre-Lie algebra:
just take this scary equation and erase the parentheses, and you'll
get something true. But not every pre-Lie algebra is associative.
I'll give you some examples in a minute.
When we have an associative algebra, we get a Lie algebra with this
bracket:
[a,b] = ab - ba
But we *also* get a Lie algebra this way from any pre-Lie algebra!
That's why they're called "pre-Lie". To check this, take the scary
equation above and use it to derive the Jacobi identity:
[[a,b],c] + [[b,c],a] + [[c,a,],b] = 0
Try it! It's fun. Honest!
Okay - so pre-Lie algebras are a cute generalization of associative
algebras which are still good enough to give Lie algebras. But now
you probably want me to explain how pre-Lie algebras show up in
nature. I'll give three examples. The first is from geometry. The
second is from quantum field theory. The third involves operads.
First, given a manifold with a flat torsion-free connection D on its
tangent bundle, we can make the space of tangent vector fields into
a pre-Lie algebra by defining
vw = D_v w
Second, Connes and Kreimer noticed a certain amazing group that plays
an important role in the renormalization of quantum field theories:
21) Alain Connes and Dirk Kreimer, Hopf algebras, renormalization and
noncommutative geometry, Commun. Math. Phys. 199 (1998), 203-242.
Also available as arXiv:hep-th/9808042.
They built this group from Feynman diagrams. How? As you probably
know, it's good to build groups starting from Lie algebras. And
that's basically what they did. But what Lie algebra did they use?
The answer is easy if you know about pre-Lie algebras. But first I
want to sketch the usual story. This is much more lengthy and
technical... but I want to run you through it, so you can fully
appreciate the elegance of the slick approach.
In the usual approach, you need to know that any Lie algebra gives
rise to something called a "universal enveloping algebra". This is a
cocommutative Hopf algebra, so its dual - defined in a careful way -
is a commutative Hopf algebra. Connes and Kreimer started by getting
their hands on this commutative Hopf algebra. Then they worked back
to the Lie algebra.
To get their commutative Hopf algebra, they began with vector space
whose basis consists of Feynman diagrams. But they also found it
helpful to consider a simpler problem, where you start with a vector
space whose basis consists of rooted forests.
A "rooted tree" looks like this:
o o o o
\|/ /
o o
\ /
o
|
o
The vertex at the bottom is called the "root". A finite collection of
rooted trees is called a "rooted forest"
o o o o
\| / |
o o o o o
\ / \ / |
o o o o o
| | \|/
o o o o
Let me show you how to take the vector space whose basis consists of
all rooted forests, and make that into a commutative Hopf algebra.
To do this, we need to give our vector space a multiplication and a
comultiplication. And it's enough to say how these work on basis
vectors, which are rooted forests.
To multiply two rooted forests, we simply set them side by side to get
a new rooted forest. This multiplication is obviously associative.
It's also commutative, since we don't care about any "ordering" or
"planar structure" on our rooted forests.
In short, multiplication is boring. The fun part is comultiplication!
To comultiply a rooted forest, we go through all ways of slicing it in
a roughly horizontal way. Each slice gives two rooted forests: one
below the slice, and one above. Then we form a big sum, where each
slice contributes a term
(below) tensor (above)
where the first factor is the forest below the slice, while the second
is the forest above the slice. You can see pictures of how this works
in Connes and Kreimer's paper.
Starting from this Hopf algebra, you can get a Lie algebra. But
there's a vastly quicker way to get this Lie algebra... if you know
about pre-Lie algebras, that is. It's:
THE LIE ALGEBRA COMING FROM THE FREE PRE-LIE ALGEBRA ON ONE GENERATOR!
That's what I call slick. Instead of paragraphs of theorems and
pictures, a single devastatingly efficient phrase.
But of course we need to see what's lurking in this phrase. Where did
the rooted forests go? To answer this, you need to check that the
free pre-Lie algebra on one generator has a basis given by rooted
trees. Then its universal enveloping algebra will have a basis given
by rooted forests!
So, the key question is: why does the free pre-Lie algebra on one
generator have a basis given by rooted trees? Let me quickly sketch
the answer Bill gave me. This may sound a bit cryptic, but I want
to write it down before I forget.
Suppose you have rooted trees a and b and you attach b to a. More
precisely: suppose you connect the root of b to some vertex of a using
a new edge, forming a new rooted tree. You can do this in lots of
ways, so you'll get a linear combination of trees, say ab. And this
how multiplication in the free pre-Lie algebra on one generator works!
We can summarize this as follows:
ab = b
|
a
Here the picture stands for *any* way of attaching b to a. We
should really sum over all of them.
When you form a product like (ab)c, different things can happen.
We can summarize the possibilities like this:
c
|
(ab)c = b + b c
| \ /
a a
The point is that we can either attach the root of c to a vertex in
b, or a vertex in a. There are fewer possibilities when we form
a(bc):
c
|
a(bc) = b
|
a
so
(ab)c - a(bc) = b c
\ /
a
Now switch b and c in this equation! We get
(ac)b - a(cb) = c b
\ /
a
Our rooted trees are not planar, so the answer is really the same:
b c c b
\ / = \ /
a a
So, we have
(ab)c - a(bc) = (ac)b - a(cb)
and this is the definition of a pre-Lie algebra!
This calculation reveals the secret meaning of pre-Lie algebras. The
secret is that pre-Lie algebras are all about attaching two things by
connecting a special point of the first to an arbitary point of the
second! Rooted trees are the universal example, so they give the free
pre-Lie algebra on one generator.
This calculation also reveals that a pre-Lie algebra is really a vector
space with a bilinear product whose "associator"
{a,b,c} = (ab)c - a(bc)
is symmetric in the last two variables.
Finally, let me tell you the third way to get pre-Lie algebras: from
operads. I'll assume you know about linear operads, which I explained
in "week282".
Suppose O is any linear operad. Let A be the free O-algebra on one
generator. Then A becomes a pre-Lie algebra in a god-given way!
You should have seen this coming, since operads are related to
trees. The details are explained here:
22) Fr?d?ric Chapoton and Muriel Livernet, Pre-Lie algebras and the
rooted trees operad, Int. Math. Res. Not. 2001 (2001), 395-408.
Also available as arXiv:math/0002069.
The idea is that A is a lot like O, since we get elements of the free
O-algebra on one generator by hitting that generator with operations
in O. More precisely, we have
A = sum O_n / S_n
Here O_n is the space of n-ary operations in O, which is acted
on by the permutation group S_n. So, we can draw an element
of A like this:
o o o
\ | /
-----
| a |
-----
|
o
where a is an n-ary operation in O, but we don't care how the
branches of this little tree are permuted.
We can multiply two guys like this by summing over all ways of
attaching the output of one to an input of the other and composing
them using our operad. And, thanks to the "secret meaning of
pre-Lie algebras", this makes A into a pre-Lie algebra!
This is nice. But over dinner, James Dolan, Bill Schmitt and I came
up with an even slicker construction which seems to give the same
multiplication on A.
A is the free O-algebra on one generator, say x. So, for any
element a in A, there's a unique O-algebra endomorphism
f(a): A -> A
sending x to a. Note that f_x is the identity. By the general
philosophy that "an infinitesimal endomorphism is a derivation", the
operator
(d/dt) f(x + ta)|_{t = 0}
is a derivation of A.
(For certain familiar sorts of algebras, you may aready know what
a derivation is. These are just special cases of a general concept
of derivation for O-algebras. I leave it as an exercise to reinvent
this general concept.)
Now, we can define a multiplication on A by
ab = (d/dt) f(x + ta)(b)|_{t = 0}
And this is the same as the multiplication I just described. Can
we use this slick description to more efficiently prove that A is a
pre-Lie algebra? I don't know.
One last thing:
Any linear operad gives a pre-Lie algebra. But pre-Lie algebras
are themselves algebras of a linear operad! This leads to curious
self-referential situation, and a nice puzzle.
There's a linear operad whose algebras are pre-Lie algebras. As we
have seen, for any linear operad O, the free O-algebra with one
generator becomes a pre-Lie algebra. So: the free pre-Lie algebra
on one generator becomes a pre-Lie algebra in this way. But of course
it already *is* a pre-Lie algebra! Do these pre-Lie structures agree?
If you give up, you can find the answer here:
23) Dominique Manchon, A short survey on pre-Lie algebras, available
at http://math.univ-bpclermont.fr/~manchon/biblio/ESI-prelie2009.pdf
But if you want to solve this puzzle on your own, it helps to think
about what the operad for pre-Lie algebras looks like. Let's call it
PL. It's not hard to guess what it looks like, given everythign
I've told you so far.
I've told you that the free pre-Lie algebra on one generator has a
basis given by rooted trees. And I've told you a general fact: the
free O-algebra on one generator is
sum O_n / S_n
So, taking O = PL, it should come as no surprise that PL_n, the space
of n-ary operations in PL, has a basis given by rooted trees with n
vertices *labelled by numbers 1 through n*. Modding out by S_n just
gets rid of those labels!
But how do you compose operations in PL?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote of the Week:
I can learn only by teaching. - John Wheeler
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Addenda: Here are some examples that illustrate the comultiplication
in the Hopf algebra of rooted forests, taken from Connes and Kreimer's
paper:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/connes_kreimer_coproduct.jpg
Here Delta stands for the comultiplication. BUT BEWARE: these trees
have their root on top - I hear that's how they grow in Europe. So,
these pictures are upside-down compared to the description I gave
earlier! Now to comultiply a rooted forest we slice it in lots of
ways and form a sum of terms
(above) tensor (below)
For example, the terms in the last line of the picture come from these
ways of slicing the given tree:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/connes_kreimer_admissible_cuts.jpg
The first way here is really two ways: we can have the whole tree
be above the slice and empty set below, or the empty set above and
the whole tree below. So, we get 5 ways to slice the tree, and
comultiplying it gives a sum of 5 terms, two of which are equal.
Here's another nice introduction to pre-Lie algebras and the Hopf
algebra of rooted forests:
24) Frederic Chapoton, Operadic point of view
on the Hopf algebra of rooted trees, available at
http://www-math.unice.fr/~patras/CargeseConference/ACQFT09_FredericCHAPOTON.pdf
BUT BEWARE: he is using right pre-Lie algebras, where I was using left
ones. So, his product obeys the law
[R(a), R(b)] = R([a,b])
where R(a) stands for right multiplication by a. Right pre-Lie algebras
work just as well as left ones.
For more discussion visit the n-Category Cafe at:
http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2010/06/this_weeks_finds_in_mathematic_60.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous issues of "This Week's Finds" and other expository articles on
mathematics and physics, as well as some of my research papers, can be
obtained at
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/
For a table of contents of all the issues of This Week's Finds, try
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/twfcontents.html
A simple jumping-off point to the old issues is available at
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/twfshort.html
If you just want the latest issue, go to
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/this.week.html
Gerry Quinn
ba...@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu says...
> Let me be a bit more precise. The boxes and the balls inside them
> are identically made. The first ball, the one we want to clone, has
> an arbitrary position and velocity. Well, of course its position is
> somewhere in the box! And if you like, we can say it's going no faster
> than 10 miles per hour. The second ball starts out in some fixed
> state. Let's say it has zero velocity and it's sitting right in a
> little dent in the middle of the box.
>
> We pop the boxes into the machine. The machine can open the tops of
> the boxes and insert sensors. When we press a big red button, the
> machine measures the position and velocity of the first ball. It
> then does whatever it wants, but after a while two boxes come out
> of the bottom of the machines... and then a bell rings.
>
> And when the bell rings, both balls have the same position and
> velocity that the first ball had when you pressed the button!
[--]
> So, the big question is: how does this result square with the widely
> shared intuition that we *can* copy classical information: that we
> *can* exactly measure the position and momentum of a ball, say, and
> get two balls into that state?
>
> I don't know the answer, but I'd like to - so let me know if you
> figure it out. Part of the problem is that when we use phrases like
> "classical structure" in our study of quantum mechanics, we are *not*
> talking about full-fledged classical mechanics, in which symplectic
> structures are important. But even after we work through this
> semantic issue, there's a physics issue left to ponder.
My intuition is that classical systems *have* a position and momentum.
It is not so obvious that they can be measured exactly, although they
can clearly in principle be measured to an arbitrary degree of
precision.
Wouldn't it require infinite energy to specify an exact location?
[We are talking about copying rather than measurement here, but the
same principles should apply.]
- Gerry Quinn
Douglas Eagleson
wrote:
> Also available athttp://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week299.html
>
> June 12, 2010
> This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 299)
> John Baez
>
> Two weeks ago I went to Oxford to attend a school on Quantum
> Information and Computer Science, and then a workshop on Quantum
> Physics and Logic. So, I'll start by telling you about those.
>
> I'll show you where you can see videos of the talks! You can learn
> about string diagrams and Frobenius algebras, and see how people use
> these in quantum physics. You can even see a program called
> "Quantomatic", which automatically carries out string diagram
> computations. And then I'll tell you about Aaron Fenyes' no-cloning
> theorem for classical mechanics. There was a lot more to the
> conference than this, but that's all I have the energy for.
>
> Why? Well, after I came home, my friend the combinatorist Bill
> Schmitt paid me a visit. He told me a lot of interesting stuff about
> about "pre-Lie algebras". These are algebraic gadgets with deep
> connections to trees, operads, and the work of Connes and Kreimer on
> renormalization in quantum field theory. So, I want to tell you about
> that stuff, too.
>
> Let's get started. You can see all the talks here:
>
>
> I've been using pictures called "string diagrams" for a long time here
> on This Week's Finds, and I've tried to explain them, but these talks
> give a nice systematic treatment:
>
> 2) Introduction to monoidal categories and graphical calculus.
> Lecture 2 by Jamie Vicary, available athttp://www.comlab.ox.ac.uk/quantum/content/1005010/
>
> read more »
Beaz goes to school finally.
If you read the stuff now, at least he is out of only first
predicate. Somebody at the school taught him transform logic finally.
Re:
"Measuring one thing will change the values
of other things you already measured, in uncontrollable random ways.
So you can never know everything about your system... not all at
once!"
This is also said: my quote:
"A measure causes observation."
It is the first third transform encountered in quantum theory. And
should never be read in first theory logic.
Sending PhDs to logic school was supposed to be all figured out as
part of the school program.
Douglas Eagleson
eaglesond...@yahoo.com
Nicolaas Vroom
"John Baez" <ba...@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu>
schreef in bericht news:hv3o7s$o99$1...@glue.ucr.edu...
>
> What's a classical structure? The basic idea is simple. You can't
> "clone a quantum". In other words, you can't build a "quantum copying
> machine" where you feed in a quantum system in an arbitrary state and
> have two identical copies pop out, both in the same state.
>
> Why not?
You will see you cannot. (I expect)
The simplest copy process is DNA copying. What you get is RNA.
If you copy RNA you get DNA.
Compared to such a machine an electron copy machine will switch
polarity of the copy. Up will be copied as Down.
Anyway that is what you want. The reality is more complex.
In reality wat you have are more or less two gyroscopes.
What you want is that the direction of one stays fixed, while the
direction of other one should be steered in a particular direction.
This is a measurement and control problem. (Lisa in space)
Related to electrons IMO the biggest problem lies in the control
part because of the interactions involved.
> Well, you could try to measure everything about your system
> and make a copy where all those measurements have the same values.
> But you can never succeed! Measuring one thing will change the values
> of other things you already measured, in uncontrollable random ways.
> So you can never know everything about your system... not all at once!
> So, it's impossible to make an exact copy.
As I said above: this is a measurement and control problem of both
the source/model and its offspring with the emphasis on control.
Even if you could measure both directions it does not mean that you
can control the direction of the offspring without changing the direction
of the source/model.
> However, sometimes measuring one thing does *not* mess up the value
> of something else you measured. Quantities that get along this way are
> called "commuting observables". A "classical structure" is a set of
> commuting observables that's as big as possible. And for each
> classical structure, we can build a copying machine that works for
> *these* observables.
I agree at the level of DNA's, PC logic and Lisa.
> For example, there's no way to take an electron, stick it in a copying
> machine, and duplicate everything about it. You can measure the spin
> of an electron along any axis. If you measure the spin along the x
> axis you get one of two results: "up" or "down". Similarly for the
> spin along the y axis. However, measuring the spin along the x
> axis messes up its spin along the y axis.
See below.
> So, you can build a machine that takes an electron, measures its spin
> along the x axis, and spits out two electrons in that same state:
> either "spin-up" or "spin-down" along the x axis. But if you put an
> electron with spin up along the y axis in this machine, it will not be
> correctly duplicated.
I doubt if you can even build a machine which only copies in one
direction without effecting the direction of the source/model.
As I said: this is more than a measurement problem.
It is also more than a simple Yes No problem in 3 dimensions,
with only 8 discrete states: (1,1,1) (1,1,-1).....(-1,-1,-1)
In reality the direction of the spin along each axis is a continuous
variable with the value 0 as a possiblity.
I fully agree with the topic underdiscussion:
You cannot "clone a quantum".
IMO this makes the following statement more acceptable:
The future of quantum computers is bleak.
Anyway this whole issue is much more a physical
than a mathematical exercise.
Nicolaas Vroom
http://users.pandora.be/nicvroom/
Nicolaas Vroom
schreef in bericht news:hv3o7s$o99$1...@glue.ucr.edu...
> What's a classical structure? The basic idea is simple. You can't
In the above text the impression is given that the reason why
you cannot "clone a quantum" is mainly a measuring problem.
I do not agree with that. IMO it is combination between
measuring and control with the emphasis on control.
If you want to copy an electron (specific its spin) than in fact
what you want is to change the direction of the spin of a second
electron such that runs parallel with the direction of the first
without changing the direction of the spin of the first.
The first issue is that if "you" want to copy the spin
than "you" must know the initial direction of both spins.
The problem that during the measurement process
"you" will change the spin of the electron. (i.e. both)
For the second electron this is even more critical because
you must now its initial direction in order to steer
the spin towards the initial position of the first.
IMO, I expect, this control problem is the most difficult,
partly because this requires a continuous monitoring of the spin
of the second electron.
For a machine which copies only in one direction
the issues are identical.
The article also gives the impression that measuring
the spin is a "Yes" "No" problem i.e. a discreet problem
and that the spin only has 8 different states i.e.
(1,1,1), (1,1,-1), .... (-1,-1,-1). This is not the case
In fact the direction along the x axis is a continuous
variable with zero being the most difficult value.
IMO all what is involved is much more a physical
than a mathematical issue.
Nicolaas Vroom
http://users.pandora.be/nicvroom/
Michael Moroney
<plutonium....@gmail.com> tarded:
> Is Terence Tao no longer able to learn math, just as Baez, Witten, Glashow, Higgs not able to learn the truth behind oval or ellipse, the 2 OR 1= 3, the geometry proof of calculus, or the real electron of the atom? Are they all washed up and washed out?
You want to see the ellipse proof AGAIN??? OK!
From: qbwr...@gmail.com
Here is a plane and cone
x + 1 = z
and
2*x^2 + 2*y^2 = z^2
Square the first equation giving us
x^2 + 2*x + 1 = z^2
In the second equation replace z^2 with x^2 + 2*x + 1 giving us 2*x^2 +
2*y^2 = x^2 + 2*x + 1
Subtract x^2 + 2*x - 1 from both sides giving us x^2 - 2*x + 1 + 2*y^2 = 2
Replace x^2 - 2*x + 1 with (x-1)^2 giving us (x-1)^2 + 2*y^2 = 2
That is EXACTLY the equation of an ellipse. And there are two planes of
symmetry.
No matter how you tilt or rotate an ellipse it
REMAINS an ellipse and has TWO PLANES of symmetry,
just like the intersection of a plane and cylinder
remains an ellipse no matter what the slope of the
plane is.
Branimir Maksimovic
> Why is UCR John Baez a failure in math and physics, cannot even take 9 times
> 105 and see that it is 945? I mean, well, why ever bother with the mindless
> Weinberg-Glashow-Gell-Mann Standard Model nonsense of physics, as some sort
> of Algebra, when you cannot do 9x105=945 and interpret it correctly of what
> you have done in physics.
>
> Physics, left up to Baez and his chums of Weinberg, Glashow, Gell-Mann, Peter
> Higgs, Ed Witten those chums are comfortable with a electron at 0.5MeV,
> proton at 938MeV, neutron at 940MeV and all three of them as "do nothing
> particles" with the amazing audacity of saying the 0.5MeV particle flys
> around the outside of a 938MeV proton at nearly the speed of light 99.99%
> speed of light, yet never flys off. For Baez, and his chums never understood
> Angular Momentum. Never could interpret 9 x 105 = 938 or 940 within Sigma
> Error.
>
> But then along comes AP, and says-- sigma error is important in physics and
> use it.
>
> AP says-- you cannot have "do nothing particles in physics".
>
> AP says-- the true electron of atoms is the muon and stuck inside a 840MeV
> proton doing the Faraday law by producing Dirac magnetic monopoles such as
> the 0.5MeV dipole as electricity.
>
> Is John Baez or Sheldon Glashow or Peter Higgs or Ed Witten still able to
> learn in science, or are they just complete washed up and washed out. Are
> they complete wash out failures of physics? Probably complete failures
> because they cannot even muster the intelligence of dropping a Kerr or Mason
> lid inside a folded up paper cone and acknowledge something as simple as what
> a High School student can prove, that a slant cut in cone is a Oval, never
> the ellipse, (see AP books below). Yet that is what the "pack of fools Baez,
> Glashow, Higgs, Witten" still teach their electron is 0.5MeV, their ellipse
> is slant cut in cone, but probably worst of all, these bozos still teach the
> Boole logic of 2 OR 1= 3 with AND as subtraction. Imagine that, physics
> professors who cannot even think logically correct, no wonder they are
> incapable of 9 x 105.
>
> 74th published book
>
> HISTORY OF THE PROTON MASS and the 945 MeV //Atom Totality series, book 3
> Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> In 2016-2017, AP discovered that the real proton has a mass of 840 MeV, not
> 938. The real electron was actually the muon and the muon stays inside the
> proton that forms a proton torus of 8 rings and with the muon as bar magnet
> is a Faraday Law producing magnetic monopoles. So this book is all about why
> researchers of physics and engineers keep getting the number 938MeV when they
> should be getting the number 840 MeV + 105 MeV = 945 MeV.
>
> Cover Picture is a proton torus of 8 rings with a muon of 1 ring inside the
> proton torus, doing the Faraday Law and producing magnetic monopoles.
> Length: 17 pages
>
> Product details • Publication Date : December 18, 2019 • Word Wise : Enabled
> • Print Length : 17 pages • File Size : 698 KB • ASIN : B082WYGVNG •
> Language: : English • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled • Enhanced Typesetting :
> Enabled • Screen Reader : Supported • X-Ray : Not Enabled • Lending :
> Enabled
>
> #1-4, 105th published book
>
> Atom Geometry is Torus Geometry // Atom Totality series, book 4 Kindle
> Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Since all atoms are doing the Faraday Law inside them, of their thrusting
> muon into a proton coil in the shape of a geometry torus, then the torus is
> the geometry of each and every atom. But then we must explain the neutrons
> since the muon and proton are doing Faraday's Law, then the neutron needs to
> be explained in terms of this proton torus with muon inside, all three shaped
> as rings. The muon is a single ring and each proton is 8 rings. The neutron
> is shaped like a plate and is solid not hollow. The explanation of a neutron
> is that of a capacitor storing what the proton-muon rings produce in
> electricity. Where would the neutron parallel plates be located? I argue in
> this text that the neutron plates when fully grown from 1 eV until 945MeV are
> like two parallel plate capacitors where each neutron is part of one plate,
> like two pieces of bread with the proton-muon torus being a hamburger patty.
>
> Cover Picture: I assembled two atoms in this picture where the proton torus
> with a band of muons inside traveling around and around the proton torus
> producing electricity. And the pie-plates represent neutrons as
> parallel-plate capacitors. Length: 39 pages
>
> Product details • Publication Date : March 24, 2020 • Word Wise : Not Enabled
> • ASIN : B086BGSNXN • Print Length : 39 pages • File Size : 935 KB •
> Language: : English • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled • Screen Reader :
> Supported • X-Ray : Not Enabled • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled •
> Lending : Enabled Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,656,820 Paid in Kindle Store
> (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store) #6413 in Mathematics (Kindle Store) #315
> in One-Hour Science & Math Short Reads #4953 in Physics (Kindle Store)
>
> #1-5, 112th published book
>
> New Perspective on Psi^2 in the Schrodinger Equation in a Atom Totality
> Universe// Atom Totality series, book 5 Kindle Edition by Archimedes
> Plutonium (Author)
>
> I first heard of the Schrodinger equation in college chemistry class. We
> never actually did any problem solving with the equation, and we were only
> told about it. Then taking physics my next year in college and after I bought
> the Feynman Lectures on Physics, just for fun for side reading, three volume
> set did I learn what this Schrodinger equation and the Psi^2 wavefunction was
> about. I am not going to teach the mathematics of the Schrodinger equation
> and the math calculations of the Psi or Psi^2 in this book, but leave that up
> to the reader or student to do that from Feynman's Lectures on Physics. The
> purpose of this book is to give a new and different interpretation of what
> Psi^2 is, what Psi^2 means. Correct interpretation of physics experiments and
> observations turns out to be one of the most difficult tasks in all of
> physics.
>
> Cover Picture: a photograph taken of me in 1993, after the discovery of
> Plutonium Atom Totality, and I was 43 years old then, on a wintery hill of
> New Hampshire. It is nice that Feynman wrote a physics textbook series, for I
> am very much benefitting from his wisdom. If he had not done that, getting
> organized in physics by writing textbooks, I would not be writing this book.
> And I would not have discovered the true meaning of the Fine Structure
> Constant, for it was Feynman who showed us that FSC is really 0.0854, not
> that of 0.0072. All because 0.0854 is Psi, and Psi^2 is 0.0072. Length: 20
> pages
>
> Product details • ASIN : B0875SVDC7 • Publication date : April 15, 2020 •
> Language: : English • File size : 1134 KB • Text-to-Speech : Enabled •
> Screen Reader : Supported • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled • X-Ray : Not
> Enabled • Word Wise : Enabled • Print length : 20 pages • Lending :
> Enabled • Best Sellers Rank: #240,066 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle
> Store) ◦ #5 in 30-Minute Science & Math Short Reads ◦ #65 in General
> Chemistry & Reference ◦ #481 in Physics (Kindle Store)
>
> #1-6, 135th published book
>
> QED in Atom Totality theory where proton is a 8 ring torus and electron =
> muon inside proton doing Faraday Law// Atom Totality series, book 6 Kindle
> Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Since the real true electron of
> atoms is the muon and is a one ring bar magnet thrusting through the 8 ring
> torus of a proton, we need a whole entire new model of the hydrogen atom.
There is nothing real, everything is thing of interpretation and belief.
What you believe is what you get.
--
7-77-777
\|/
---
/|\
> Because the Bohr model with the 0.5MeV particle jumping orbitals as the
> explanation of Spectral Lines is all wrong. In this vacuum of explaining
> spectral line physics, comes the AP Model which simply states that the
> hydrogen atom creates Spectral lines because at any one instant of time 4 of
> the 8 proton rings is "in view" and the electricity coming from those 4 view
> rings creates spectral line physics.
>
> Cover Picture: Is a imitation of the 8 ring proton torus, with my fingers
> holding on the proton ring that has the muon ring perpendicular and in the
> equatorial plane of the proton rings, thrusting through. This muon ring is
> the same size as the 8 proton rings making 9 x 105MeV = 945MeV of energy. The
> muon ring has to be perpendicular and lie on the equator of the proton torus.
> Surrounding the proton-torus would be neutrons as skin or coating cover and
> act as capacitors in storing the electricity produced by the proton+muon.
>
>
> Product details • ASIN : B08K47K5BB • Publication date : September 25, 2020 •
> Language : English • File size : 587 KB • Text-to-Speech : Enabled •
> Screen Reader : Supported • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled • X-Ray : Not
> Enabled • Word Wise : Not Enabled • Print length : 25 pages • Lending :
> Enabled • Best Sellers Rank: #291,001 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle
> Store) ◦ #13 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads ◦ #52 in General
> Chemistry & Reference ◦ #334 in General Chemistry
>
>
>
> #1-7, 138th published book The true NUCLEUS of Atoms are inner toruses moving
> around in circles of a larger outer torus// Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden
> Experiment revisited // Atom Totality Series, book 7 Kindle Edition by
> Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> The geometry of Atoms of the Table of Chemical Elements is torus geometry. We
> know this to be true for the torus geometry forms the maximum electricity
> production when using the Faraday Law. We see this in Old Physics with their
> tokamak toruses attempting to make fusion, by accelerating particles of the
> highest possible acceleration for the torus is that geometry. But the torus
> is the geometry not only of maximum acceleration but of maximum electrical
> generation by having a speeding bar magnet go around and around inside a
> torus== the Faraday law, where the torus rings are the copper closed wire
> loop. The protons of atoms are 8 loops of rings in a torus geometry, and the
> electron of atoms is the muon as bar magnet, almost the same size as the
> proton loops but small enough to fit inside proton loops. It is torus
> geometry that we investigate the geometry of all atoms. Length: 41 pages
>
> Product details • Publication Date : October 9, 2020 • File Size : 828 KB
> • Word Wise : Not Enabled • Print Length : 41 pages • ASIN : B08KZT5TCD •
> Language: : English • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled • Enhanced Typesetting :
> Enabled • Screen Reader : Supported • X-Ray : Not Enabled • Lending :
> Enabled
>
> #1-8, 1st published book
>
> Atom Totality Universe, 8th edition, 2017// A history log book: Atom Totality
> Series book 8 Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
>
> Last revision 7Apr2021. This was AP's first published science book.
>
> Advisory: This is a difficult book to read and is AP's research log book of
> the Atom Totality in 2016-2017. I want to keep it for its history value. AP
> advises all readers wanting to know the Plutonium Atom Totality theory to go
> to the 9th edition that is the latest up to date account of this theory. The
> reason AP wants to keep the 8th edition is because of Historical Value, for
> in this book, while writing it, caused the discovery of the real electron is
> the muon of atoms. The real proton of atoms is 840MeV and not the 938MeV that
> most books claim. The particle discovered by JJ Thomson in 1897 thinking he
> discovered the electron of atoms was actually the Dirac magnetic monopole at
> 0.5MeV. This discovery changes every, every science that uses atoms and
> electricity and magnetism, in other words, every science.
>
> Foreward: I wrote the 8th edition of Atom Totality and near the end of
> writing it in 2017, I had my second greatest physics discovery. I learned the
> real electron of atoms was the muon at 105MeV and not the tiny 0.5MeV
> particle that J.J.Thomson found in 1897. So I desperately tried to include
> that discovery in my 8th edition and it is quite plain to see for I tried to
> write paragraphs after each chapter saying as much. I knew in 2017, that it
> was a great discovery, changing all the hard sciences, and reframing and
> restructuring all the hard sciences. Length: 632 pages
>
>
> Product details File Size: 1132 KB Print Length: 632 pages Publication Date:
> March 11, 2019 Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC Language: English ASIN:
> B07PLP9NDR Text-to-Speech: Enabled  X-Ray: Not Enabled  Word Wise:
> Enabled Lending: Enabled Screen Reader: Supported  Enhanced Typesetting:
> Enabled  Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #578,229 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top
> 100 Paid in Kindle Store) #1610 in Physics (Kindle Store) #8526 in Physics
> (Books) #18851 in Biological Sciences (Books)
>
> #2-1, 137th published book
>
> Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1
> Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
>
>
> #1 New Release in Electromagnetic Theory
>
> This will be AP's 137th published book on science. And the number 137 is
> special to me for it is the number of QED, Quantum Electrodynamics as the
> inverse fine structure constant. I can always remember 137 as that special
> constant of physics and so I can remember where Teaching True Physics was
> started by me.
>
> Time has come for the world to have the authoritative textbooks for all of
> High School and College education. Written by the leading physics expert of
> the time. The last such was Feynman in the 1960s with Feynman Lectures on
> Physics. The time before was Maxwell in 1860s with his books and Encyclopedia
> Britannica editorship. The time is ripe in 2020 for the new authoritative
> texts on physics. It will be started in 2020 which is 60 years after Feynman.
> In the future, I request the physics community updates the premier physics
> textbook series at least every 30 years. For we can see that pattern of 30
> years approximately from Faraday in 1830 to Maxwell in 1860 to Planck and
> Rutherford in about 1900, to Dirac in 1930 to Feynman in 1960 and finally to
> AP in 1990 and 2020. So much happens in physics after 30 years, that we need
> the revisions to take place in a timely manner. But also, as we move to
> Internet publishing such as Amazon's Kindle, we can see that updates can take
> place very fast, as editing can be a ongoing monthly or yearly activity. I
> for one keep constantly updating all my published books, at least I try to.
>
> Feynman was the best to make the last authoritative textbook series for his
> concentration was QED, Quantum Electrodynamics, the pinnacle peak of physics
> during the 20th century. Of course the Atom Totality theory took over after
> 1990 and all of physics; for all sciences are under the Atom Totality theory.
> And as QED was the pinnacle peak before 1990, the new pinnacle peak is the
> Atom Totality theory. The Atom Totality theory is the advancement of QED, for
> the Atom Totality theory primal axiom says -- All is Atom, and atoms are
> nothing but Electricity and Magnetism. Length: 64 pages
>
> Product details • File Size : 790 KB • Publication Date : October 5, 2020
> • Word Wise : Enabled • Print Length : 64 pages • Text-to-Speech : Not
> enabled • Screen Reader : Supported • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled •
> X-Ray : Not Enabled • Language: : English • ASIN : B08KS4YGWY • Lending :
> Enabled • Best Sellers Rank: #430,602 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle
> Store) ◦ #39 in Electromagnetic Theory ◦ #73 in Electromagnetism (Kindle
> Store) ◦ #74 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
>
> #2-2, 145th published book
>
>
> TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS//Junior High School// Physics textbook series, book 2
> Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> What I am doing is clearing the field of physics, clearing it of all the
> silly mistakes and errors and beliefs that clutter up physics. Clearing it of
> its fraud and fakeries and con-artistry. I thought of doing these textbooks
> starting with Senior year High School, wherein I myself started learning
> physics. But because of so much fraud and fakery in physics education, I
> believe we have to drop down to Junior year High School to make a drastic and
> dramatic emphasis on fakery and con-artistry that so much pervades science
> and physics in particular. So that we have two years in High School to learn
> physics. And discard the nonsense of physics brainwash that Old Physics
> filled the halls and corridors of education.
>
> Product details • ASIN : B08PC99JJB • Publication date : November 29, 2020 •
> Language: : English • File size : 682 KB • Text-to-Speech : Enabled •
> Screen Reader : Supported • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled • X-Ray : Not
> Enabled • Word Wise : Enabled • Print length : 78 pages • Lending :
> Enabled • Best Sellers Rank: #185,995 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle
> Store) ◦ #42 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads ◦ #344 in Physics
> (Kindle Store) ◦ #2,160 in Physics (Books)
>
> #2-3, 146th published book
>
> TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Senior High School// Physics textbook series, book 3
> Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> I believe that in knowing the history of a science is knowing half of that
> science. And that if you are amiss of knowing the history behind a science,
> you have only a partial understanding of the concepts and ideas behind the
> science. I further believe it is easier to teach a science by teaching its
> history than any other means of teaching. So for senior year High School, I
> believe physics history is the best way of teaching physics. And in later
> years of physics courses, we can always pick up on details. So I devote this
> senior year High School physics to a history of physics, but only true
> physics. And there are few books written on the history of physics, so I
> chose Asimov's The History of Physics, 1966 as the template book for this
> textbook. Now Asimov's book is full of error and mistakes, and that is
> disappointing but all of Old Physics is full of error. On errors and mistakes
> of Old Physics, the best I can do is warn the students, and the largest
> warning of all is that whenever someone in Old Physics says "electron" what
> they are talking about is really the Dirac magnetic monopole. And whenever
> they talk about the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom, they are talking about
> huge huge grave mistakes, for the true atom is protons as 8 ringed toruses
> with a muon stuck inside of a proton doing the Faraday law and producing
> those magnetic monopoles as electricity. I use Asimov's book as a template
> but in the future, I hope to rewrite this textbook using no template at all,
> that is if I have time in the future. Cover Picture: Is the book The History
> of Physics, by Isaac Asimov, 1966 and on top of the book are 4 cut-outs of
> bent circles representing magnetic monopoles which revolutionizes modern
> physics, especially the ElectroMagnetic theory.
>
> Product details • ASIN : B08RK33T8V • Publication date
> : December 28, 2020 • Language : English • File size
> : 794 KB • Text-to-Speech : Enabled • Screen
> Reader : Supported • Enhanced typesetting :
> Enabled • X-Ray : Not Enabled • Word Wise :
> Enabled • Print length : 123 pages • Lending :
> Enabled • Best Sellers Rank: #4,167,235 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in
> Kindle Store) ◦ #15,099 in Physics (Kindle Store) ◦ #91,163 in Physics
> (Books)
>
> #3-1, 2nd published book
>
> True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 Kindle Edition by Archimedes
> Plutonium (Author)
>
> Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J.
> Thomson's small particle of 0.5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017,
> Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and
> proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real
> proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle
> Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s
> was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before
> 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for
> magnetic monopole which is everywhere.
>
> Cover picture: shows 3 isomers of CO2 and the O2 molecule.
>
> Length: 1150 pages
>
>
> Product details • File Size : 2167 KB • ASIN : B07PLVMMSZ • Publication
> Date : March 11, 2019 • Word Wise : Enabled • Print Length : 1150 pages •
> Language: : English • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled • Enhanced Typesetting :
> Enabled • X-Ray : Not Enabled • Lending : Enabled Amazon Best Sellers Rank:
> #590,212 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store) #181 in
> General Chemistry & Reference #1324 in General Chemistry #1656 in Physics
> (Kindle Store)
>
> 3rd published book
>
> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1
> Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is
> the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never
> an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the
> ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a
> cone.
>
> Length: 21 pages
>
> File Size: 1620 KB Print Length: 21 pages Publication Date: March 11, 2019
> Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC Language: English ASIN: B07PLSDQWC
> Text-to-Speech: Enabled X-Ray: Not Enabled Word Wise: Not Enabled Lending:
> Enabled Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
>
>
> 11th published book
>
> World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof
> series, book 2 Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Last revision was 19May2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
> Preface: Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this
> book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of
> Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was
> geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been
> a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a
> geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.
>
> Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none
> could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of
> mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis".
> To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be
> cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a
> sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of
> Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out
> the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of
> mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the
> functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof
> of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a
> Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is
> _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the
> equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?
>
> Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental
> Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by
> AP.
>
> Length: 137 pages
>
> Product details ASIN : B07PQTNHMY Publication date : March 14, 2019 Language
> : English File size : 1307 KB Text-to-Speech : Enabled Screen Reader :
> Supported Enhanced typesetting : Enabled X-Ray : Not Enabled Word Wise : Not
> Enabled Print length : 137 pages Lending : Enabled Amazon Best Sellers Rank:
> #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store) #2 in
> 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads #134 in Calculus (Books) #20 in Calculus
> (Kindle Store)
>
>
> 5th published book
>
> Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching
> True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
> Preface: First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and
> math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize
> and fix their errors.
>
> The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and
> "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic
> ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5,
> when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR
> 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the
> idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one
> of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of
> statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never
> TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make
> it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then
> requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T
> = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U
> is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is
> undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than
> mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for
> division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact
> that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of
> mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of
> Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why
> Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting
> falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end
> conclusion.
>
> My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime
> around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was
> illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply
> the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method.
> So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a
> synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or,
> If->Then, by 2015.
>
> Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a
> good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show
> the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on
> the blackboard or an overhead projector.
>
>
> Length: 72 pages
>
> File Size: 773 KB Print Length: 72 pages Publication Date: March 12, 2019
> Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC Language: English ASIN: B07PMB69F5
> Text-to-Speech: Enabled  X-Ray: Not Enabled  Word Wise: Not Enabled
> Lending: Enabled Screen Reader: Supported  Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
> y z
>| / | / |/______ x
>
> More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math,
> sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And
> there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure
> science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.
>
> In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police
> Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net
> spam day and night.
>
> I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent
> posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that
> floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers,
> off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers,
> suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew
> stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.
>
> There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long
> line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to
> spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content). And countries using
> sci.physics & sci.math as propaganda platforms, such as tampering in
> elections with their mind-rot.
>
> Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> Archimedes Plutonium
--
/Volumes/air AFP Music Volume/NATASA/temp/peste noire/(2007) Folkfuck Folie/04 - D'un Vilain.mp3
Archimedes Plutonium
> There is nothing real, everything is thing of interpretation and belief.
> What you believe is what you get.
>
> --
> 7-77-777
> \|/
> ---
> /|\
Archimedes Plutonium
Last revision was 21Sep2021.
Details of all of these entries found in several of these already published books such as 74th published book
HISTORY OF THE PROTON MASS and the 945 MeV //Atom Totality series, book 3 Kindle Edition
True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 Kindle Edition
Preface: I suppose, going forward, physics should always have a physicsopedia, where major parts of physics are held under question, under suspicion as to correctness. In past history we have called them as "doubters of the mainstream". Yet physics, can have no permanent mainstream. And theories passing as "standard model" is a travesty of science, of logical thinking and just a wide open door of physics corruption and tedious nonsense. The Standard Model of Old Physics is a example of "numerology and algebras turned from circus act into the physics mainstream".
1) The picture of electricity and how it works was only truly begun in 2020 with the cover of this book showing electricity as closed loops, hoola hoops and how these loops flow in circuits taking on the shape of those circuits at the speed of light, where the flowing entity are magnetic monopoles-dipoles and photons. Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1
by Archimedes Plutonium.
2) The thoughts and images of electrons in Old Physics and Old Chemistry were horrendously error filled. The first place I see this huge error is in Feynman Lectures on Physics, not that I want to pick on Feynman for he is one of my heroes, but rather I chose Feynman because his Lectures have been translated into almost all languages and his books widely available and known. On page 14-10 of Volume 1, Feynman... And news out of Princeton Univ as of May 2021, where they are finding that the 0.5MeV Dirac magnetic monopole comes in pairs, even though the Princeton researchers are too stupid yet to know that the 0.5MeV particle is not the atom's electron.
3) Old Physics never had a Primal axiom of Physics-- All is atom and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. Old Physics wasted too much time on General Relativity (a fake theory) in the 20th century and too little time on electricity and magnetism.
4) New Physics starts with electricity and magnetism. Old Physics always started with idealizations such as linear momentum, and a force of gravity that had no relation to electricity and magnetism. Idealization physics is more imagination than about the truth of the world.
5) New Physics has the correct particles of physics where the proton is 840MeV, the real electron is the muon of 105MeV and is stuck inside the proton torus thrusting through the proton and producing electricity in the Faraday law. The 0.5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole.
6) The true cosmology theory of science is the Atom Totality theory which began to replace the Big Bang theory starting 1990.
7) Big Bang theory is a joke, never a reality. And a outright contradiction of the Atomic theory, that all matter is composed of atoms. For all matter can be interchanged with "all things". If all things are atoms, then the universe itself , we must admit if we are logical thinkers, is "a thing" and thus the universe must be a atom also. Big Bang contradicts Logic. And if science is anything, it is logical.
8) When you find in the world, a Generalization of All Matter is made up of Atoms. You have to go with the Logic as the truth. If all Matter is atoms, then the Whole of the Universe is Matter, you must continue to the conclusion that the Whole is also an Atom. If you do not make that conclusion, you have to thence say-- All Matter except the Universe, and that is a silly end conclusion.
9) A second major physics fallacy is their screwing up of the 1897 Thomson particle they called the electron of 0.5MeV when it is the Dirac magnetic monopole that Thomson had found. It would not be until 1936 that the true electron of atoms is discovered and called the muon. What the 1897 screw-up mis-identity shows most of all, is that physicists throughout the 20th century never had a handle on what angular momentum means. If you understand angular momentum, you would realize that a proton at 938MeV and electron at 0.5MeV cannot support the existence of a hydrogen atom, or any atom for that sake.
10) Direct consequence of muon being the true electron, determines that the proton is 840MeV and the muon is stuck inside the proton doing a Faraday Law of producing new electricity by turning Space into electromagnetism. This is Dirac's new radioactivity and is the creation of new mass, matter in Space. This means all stars shine not from fusion, but from Faraday Law. Not only do stars grow more massive and bigger, but that all astro-bodies grow bigger. Meaning the Nebular Dust Cloud theory is a gigantic hoax for the growing of the Solar System.
11) Stars shine not from fusion, but from the muon thrusting through its proton coil. Every atom inside a star and every proton in that star is making new electricity from its muon thrusting through its proton 8 ring coil tokamak.
12) A direct consequence that the muon is stuck inside the proton in all experiments, is this Logical Principle, that in physics, every particle or subatomic particle has a function, a job, a task. Principles of Science are some of the most important teachings and understandings in science. One has a logical hole in the head if they think you can have particles of physics, and those particles have no job, no function, no task to perform. Existence in physics means-- a job to do.
13) A New Periodic Table of Chemical Elements must emerge from a mistaken electron as 0.5MeV when it truly is 105MeV, the muon. Such a table is based not on a Lewis structure of 8 but rather on 6. There are 6 successive elements in a row, and only 6 in a row. See AP's book for details: Research Notebook of AP on True Chemistry Periodic Table of Elements based on 6, not the error-filled table of Old Chemistry, Chemistry Series, book 5. The nucleus of atoms are toruses inside larger toruses, not the Rutherford model of a massive nucleus that was sort of stationary. No, the nucleus is a smaller torus going around in circles inside a large torus, and making more electricity.
14) Nebular Dust Cloud theory is purely a hoax, for the Universe has some 10^11 planet systems, and to think that Nebular Dust is spread so evenly throughout the Universe, when supernova are rare, is a colossal logic brain dump. According to Dirac, each and every atom is growing bigger in the universe every second and minute of the day, just as Dirac implied with his "new radioactivities" in his book "Directions in Physics". AP suggests only a half brain would need something as stupid silly as a Nebular Dust Cloud scattered uniformly from rare supernova, here, there, and everywhere.
15) Direct consequence of Faraday law going on inside each and every atom means the Sun will go Red Giant phase starting now and completed in 140 million years where Earth is like Venus-- not habitable by life. Before the end of 1 to 10 million years hence forward of August 2020, if humanity has not colonized Mars, Europa, Pluto, there is a good chance humanity goes extinct.
16) The most important number in all of science for humanity, is the number for the yearly increase in Solar radiation by our Sun. As of year 2020, NASA has the figure pegged at 0.005% yearly increase in total solar radiation. This easily explains a loss of total Insects on Earth at 25% total insect biomass for the past decade. This is a huge alarm bell, for it means, unless humanity makes its future home on Europa, Mars and Pluto, the entire human species goes extinct, and as the Sun further goes Red Giant, humanity must constantly go further out away from the Sun.
17) Following mistakes of Old Physics is their Unification of Forces, and that they followed a science nitwit of Einstein with his General Relativity, rather than follow the giant of physics of James Clerk Maxwell and continue on with electricity and magnetism as being gravity. No, most of the physicists of the 20th century were airheads following a fakester of Einstein. This is as much a lesson in sociology as is physics. If you follow someone, you better be sure he/she is correct thoroughly correct. Otherwise it is just idiotic hero worship.
18) Black Holes-- invented by the most ignorant and stupid physicists whose imagination wants to violate the Pauli Exclusion Principle and gain fame and fortune with a brain that has no logical marbles at all. Black hole people were followers of the deluded Einstein with his General Relativity. If you believe in black-holes, you really do not belong in science, and so stupid, that you probably would even fail science fiction. A simple test of any scientist,-- do you believe in black holes-- and shown the exit door of science as a career.
19) Dark Matter, Dark Energy-- this was invented by a group of logical brain dead physicists looking at galaxy rotations and seeing that there was not enough mass in Newton's law of gravity to account for this fast rotation of galaxies, these physicists opted for fame and fortune, rather than admit Electricity and Magnetism, not Newton gravity, causes galaxy rotation. Here again is the power of sociology of follow a leader-- Einstein and his deluded General Relativity. Much of the 20th century physics was a waste of time in following the delusions of Einstein, when it should have followed Maxwell of 1860s then Bohr's quantum mechanics.
20) Doppler Red Shift one of the horrendous follies of modern physics and astronomy. Please see AP's book to get the truth behind Doppler redshift. Doppler redshift (blueshift) has nothing to do with motion of source and cannot tell you distance//(Physics series for High School Book 6)
21) Cosmic Background Radiation, gravity waves, neutron stars, more and more physics mindrot. More and more "gone astray" with the mind-rot of General Relativity and Big Bang b.s.
22) Much of Old Physics was idealization, and imagination but not underlying true reality of a phenomenon, and linear momentum a prime example of mere imagination. Halliday & Resnick are full of idealizations, then topped off by some mathematics for their idealization. Feynman is not as bad as Halliday & Resnick on idealization. True Physics is about actual experiments and the results of experiments, not some idealization of what is going on.
23) Generalization or Idealization in science is usually fakery it starts with the premiss that one knows what is going on and just trimming away all the rest of the universe to explain the situation. The opposite of Generalization or Idealization is that of Experimentation. Experiment starts with the premiss we know little about something and use experiments to try to fathom what is going on. You see the major difference? Generalization and Idealization assumes we know it all, and doing the generalization and idealization to make the explanation simple.
24) Modeling: when we are in the dark about some physics, it is often useful that we model that phenomenon to gain more knowledge of what truly is going on. This does not mean that models are correct, for many times the model leads to fakery. A good example is the planets going around the sun was used to model the atom interior as electrons going around a nucleus. It was a wrong model for the better model was a proton torus of rings and the electron muon thrusting through the rings in a Faraday law. Modeling is a recognition we do not know the physical reality and are using a tool to model the phenomenon. A great example of modeling is the photon or light wave modeled by the DNA and RNA of biology.
25) Mathematics is a minor feature of physics; and mathematics is a subset of physics. Everything that goes on in mathematics is because of atoms of physics. The proof in mathematics is merely the physics "deciding experiment". There are two houses in physics, where houses are complamentary duals -- particle and wave, just so, there are two houses in mathematics, numbers and geometry. Complamentary duality such as particle and wave cause existence. Complamentary duality comes in many forms and here is a short list of them.
26) The mathematics used in New Physics recognizes that Calculus is the pinnacle peak of math, and so, the calculus in New Physics uses only polynomial functions, no trigonometry, no logarithmic, no exponential, nothing but polynomials are used in New Physics. That means if a function were not a polynomial in physics, we have to convert it to a polynomial function before we can use it. We use the Lagrange transform or what I call the Polynomial Transform which in its most simple form is shown.
27) Since all functions in physics are polynomials, means all calculus used in physics is simply the Power Rule for derivative and Power Rule for integral.
28) Since math is so simple with the all functions being only polynomials, that means all the trigonometry is removed out of calculus. And the sinusoid curve was con-art fakery for the sine and cosine are semicircle waves.
29) I added the correction of the Natural Logarithm Ln(x) to base 2.71... for its definition using Y= 1/x of an integral over an interval from 1 to x in 1/t dt is very much flawed and incorrect. The true definition of Ln(x) has to be from a geometry that allows for the equiangular logarithmic spiral. A Ln(x) based upon 1/x does not give a equiangular log spiral. What does give a equiangular log spiral are the Decimal Grid Number System where you have equal spacing of discrete numbers. So for example in Old Math their Ln(1.02) was 0.0198... while in New Math where we have a corrected and true Ln(x) that Ln(1.02) = 0.02 exactly.
30) No-one in physics really understood what Angular Momentum means. If anyone thought he/she understood, would have recognized that the hydrogen atom cannot exist under a 938MeV proton and a 0.5MeV electron...
31) Let me stop there about the mis-identification of the true electron, and talk about Principles of Logic, principles of reasoning, for most physicists lack a good enough brain of logic to do physics.
32) Another Principle of Logic, and why all physicists, even my heroes of Dirac and Feynman never understood Angular Momentum. They all knew Linear Momentum. They all knew that gravity makes things go in circles or closed loops. So, the question of logic is. Is there such a thing as Linear Momentum, or is it a generalized fiction?
33) It is a credit to Dirac to keep looking for the magnetic monopole for one of the greatest principles in all of physics, and thus all of science is Symmetry..
34) Standard Model of Old Physics-- logical tripe, mind-rot physics, another group of physicists grasping for fame and fortune. So dumb were they, their subatomic particles have no job no task no function for subatomic particles, and they needed a Dirac magnetic monopole, but too stupid to realize they had a muon that did nothing in the Standard Model.
35) The photon or light wave is very complex and we have a great model of the photon as DNA or RNA of biology. Whenever we want to think about what a photon is, we project our thoughts upon DNA and RNA and model what the interior and exterior of light wave is. This idea that light wave and DNA are replicas of one another was invented by AP in the 1990s and AP wrote many books on this idea.
36) Light wave can be both longitudinal as in radio waves or transverse as in waves higher in frequency than 17777 meters wavelength 17777 Hz frequency (the square root of speed of light).
37) Light is always a closed loop stretching all the way around back to its source. This gives what is called Quantum Entanglement. In Old Physics they viewed a light wave as having a head and a tail.
38) Light Waves modeled as DNA and RNA, especially the closed loop mitochondrial DNA makes us realize the rich internal structure of photons, light waves, and this is how first life began, as a materialized light wave spilling its internal structure inside a capacitor. In Old Physics their light wave was just a bobbing up and down of a point in space, no structure, no nothing.
39) Higgs Mechanism-- in Standard Model of Old Physics, is sheer mind-rot. For they failed to even notice the true theory of Star power-- how stars shine is the Faraday law, which creates new energy and thus new mass. Faraday law is the mass creation law, and not some bozo higgs mechanism.
40) Let me switch to something entirely different-- Superconductivity. Sure, superconductivity exists, but the complaint is the ignorant interpretation as given by BCS theory, a interpretation of their 0.5MeV particles pairing together. When, all that Superconductivity is, is a Capacitor phenomenon. At a cold temperature, all the electricity stays put, no loss. And as soon as you connect the capacitor, it all flows, no resistance, no loss. Superconductivity is Capacitor perfection. That is why there is no AC superconductivity.
41) The viewpoint of electricity as particles or waves is fakery in Old Physics, with their electron as electricity when it is really magnetic monopoles as waves that is electricity.
42) Maxwell Equations needed refurbishing early in the 20th century when the age of electricity with Tesla and Edison was thriving. Trouble is, Old Physics was deep in distraction with Quantum Mechanics. The highest priority was to fix Maxwell Equations, not with the details of Quantum Mechanics, but then the age of atomic weapons plunged more interest in Quantum Mechanics and not electricity and magnetism.
43) Maxwell Equations should have been based on Ohm's law. Take one of the laws of electricity and magnetism, the most simple in mathematical form and use it as basis foundation of all the other laws of EM. New Ohm's law V=iBL.
44) EM has an electric field, and electric field is angular momentum, the L in V= iBL.
45) There is a magnetic monopole and it is often found to be the 0.5MeV particle. So Gauss's law was wrong.
46) Once you make New Ohm's law the basis of EM math and theory, then all the permutations of derivative of V= iBL serves as the newly revised Maxwell Equations.
47) Magnetism has only a Attraction force, never a repel or repulsion force. The repel is deceptive for we see it as repel but it is really "denial of same space occupancy". The two concepts are close together and those people with weak logical minds think it is all repel. But the "denial of same space occupancy" is the Pauli Exclusion Principle and is _Not_ a repel, nor a repulsion. EM theory has only Attraction force and Denial of Same Space Occupancy.
48) And here we see again the Logical Weakness in making the Maxwell Equations, same logical weakness in forming the Unification of Forces in Physics. When you have a collection of items to unify into one or to unify into a synthesis, the basis of the unification or the basis of the synthesis is to chose the "most perfect item" ...
49) Once you have the Maxwell Equations based on V= iBL and all its calculus permutations, then we see that 1860's Maxwell Equations had many terms missing in Faraday law, in Ampere law even in the Capacitor Law of V' = (iBL)'.
50) Then we see that due to All is Atom and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism and the fact the highest equation in physics is of form V = iBL, we learn the stunning fact that mathematics volume is the highest equation in mathematics also. We see that in chemistry the Ideal Gas Law is really just a form of V= iBL.
51) The huge error of "charge" in Old Physics. This was one of AP's most horrible error to get rid of. It comes from horses charging in the 18th century, the time of Ben Franklin and others. And we still have "horsepower" as power unit in physics, where we convert to watts in electricity. Charge is replaced in New Physics with the magnetic monopole as electricity. And come to think of it, logically, charge could not have been thrown out of Old Physics, until the Dirac magnetic monopole was widely known and recognized. Whenever you feel the urge to say "charge" do not say it, instead, say monopole or say Coulomb.
52) Neutral currents in Old Physics in their unification of weak nuclear with electromagnetism was a joke. Once you have the 0.5MeV particle as the Dirac magnetic monopole, the "neutral current was a laughable joke. Once you have electricity is monopole or dipole or photons, the joke of neutral currents goes away with photons as electricity.
53) From the revised equations of EM, based upon V = iBL we realize that calculus needs a 3rd dimension calculus, for the calculus of Old Math and Old Physics had no 3rd dimensional calculus at all. And what 3D Calculus turns out to be is the angular momentum and the force of gravity. AP's sophomore college textbook is devoted to the 3rd dimension calculus.
54) Having fixed calculus by extending it to the 3rd dimension, we realize that in astronomy where they never heard of 3D calculus, that the numbers on planet Mercury required there to be a mass of some kind of moon. Turns out, it is a Cloud of Magnetic Monopoles that is the moon of Mercury. AP names this cloud-moon as Willis.
55) In researching why dragonflies grew so gigantic in size, as a result of a different gravity on Earth, in that Earth was 1/8 the mass in the Devonian geological period, that gigantism can flourish in that sort of low gravity. AP proposes the Growing Earth theory of Dirac's "new radioactivity" all because muon thrusting through proton coil.
56) In Old Physics, physics is seen as mostly algebra and calculus math. In New Physics, we see physics as math, divided into two dual houses. One is algebra calculus and the other is a geometry format. The algebra of Faraday law is i' = (V/(BL) )' the geometry description of Faraday law is "a thrusting bar magnet through a closed loop wire produces a electric current". Actually the geometry side of physics is far more instructive and far more of knowing what is truly going on. So Old Physics only stressed the algebra side of physics. New Physics stresses the geometry side as more important.
57) In Old Physics the Bohr model of the atom is all wrong. Bohr never assigned jobs, tasks, functions of subatomic particles. And Bohr was going from the shoddy interpretation of the Rutherford gold leaf experiment where it was claimed a nuclear center with tiny electrons orbiting the massive tiny nucleus. A sort of Sun solar system model, only this time the interior of atoms. Truth is, the muon and proton are doing a Faraday law and that requires a torus ring for the proton with muon inside thrusting through. No nucleus in New Physics. And we need to do over entirely the Rutherford experiment.
58) The interior of atoms are toruses of protons with muon inside making electricity from Space and then storage of the electricity in neutron capacitors. This is how every atom grows, and how the universe itself grows and becomes more massive with time.
59) Calculus of AP Equations of
1) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field B = kg /A*s^2
2) V = i*B*L New Ohm's law, law of electricity
3) V' = (i*B*L)' Capacitor Law of Physics
4) (V/i*L)' = B' Ampere-Maxwell law
5) (V/(B*L))' = i' Faraday law
6) (V/(i*B))' = L' the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force
7) L = E , angular momentum equals Electric field
60) Logic Principle: focus in on anything perfect in physics, such as the photon light wave is the only perfect particle of physics which leads to the EM unification of all the 4 forces of physics. But mathematics has a "perfect formula or equation" which is volume of Space. Volume of Space takes the form of V = A*B*C. Perfect math form for volume translates into physics as Voltage = iBL. But this perfect math form also translates into chemistry ideal gas law of P = nRT(1/Volume) which when reduced is of the form P = A*B*C, just like Voltage = iBL.
61) Physics and mathematics have at most 3 dimensions. There exists no 4th dimension, or higher. Dimension of space stops with the 3rd dimension.
62) The highest and most perfect math formulas of Physics are of form V = A*B*C, and where this volume type of formula V = ABC is energy and volume of Space.
63) Old Physics made a big mistake with Sound Waves. They made the mistake that Sound does not involve electricity and magnetism, the EM wave spectrum. To correct their mistake, all they needed to do is recognize what is called the DeBroglie pilot wave. A radio wave is the source of all Sound waves.
64) Old Physics screwed up badly on the concept of "mole" in physics and chemistry. All they really needed to say was divide the mass of the proton+muon into 1 gram. And the true number of mole is not 6.02*10^23 but is rather 5.98*10^23.
65) Old Physics and Old Chemistry screwed up badly on the Periodic Table of Chemical Elements because their table is based not upon the structure of the proton and muon but on the elusive particle of the magnetic monopole which is produced as a byproduct of the muon and proton. Old Chemistry had a Lewis structure based upon 8, when even those in chemistry could see that the P orbital has only 6 number, not 8. AP's New Periodic Table of Elements is based on 6, not 8.
66) All of radioactivity teaching in Old Physics must be revised since the 0.5MeV particle is not the electron of atoms but the Dirac magnetic monopole. Why is AP the first scientist to see that Faraday Law is the same as Radioactivity Disintegration Law.
67) Radioactive decay is a subject that needs massive overhaul in Old Physics for they got all the different subatomic particles mixed-up. The 0.5MeV particle is along with the positron, are magnetic monopoles and not decay but rather emission of electricity produced by Faraday law of muon and proton. And real radioactive decay of a hydrogen atom or helium atom etc etc must be viewed and taught in the perspective of breaking apart a many ringed toruses of protons. The collision of a neutron capacitor with a many ringed proton toruses is New Physics radioactivity.
68) Old Physics along with Old Biology got photosynthesis wrong. PHOTOSYNTHESIS: summary of how it works-- air of CO2 molecules, Animal-CO2 (not Fire-CO2) enters the stoma opening to the magnesium atom capacitor. And sunlight shines on the capacitor. The sunlight is turned into electricity and stored inside the magnesium capacitor. So much electricity is stored that as a Animal-CO2 molecule touches the capacitor, it strips off the carbon C atom and leaves behind a O2 molecule. This stripped off C atom immediately comes in contact with water molecule H2O and with the capacitor energy is transformed into CH2O. This newly minted sugar hydrocarbon CH2O is stacked up forming a "tail" in the magnesium capacitor. This CH2O can be further combined with other CH2O molecules forming various other sugars such as C_6 H_12 O_6.
69) Logic Principle of Symmetry. The Dirac magnetic monopole was extremely extremely important for all of Physics, in a sense, all of physics falls apart if we have asymmetry in the major structure of atoms. Atoms are symmetrical. So to have quantization of electricity, you must have quantization of magnetism. Pure and simple.
70) Principle of Symmetry brings me again to the magnetic monopole. Of course, well, symmetry is what drove Dirac to know it exists, even though he faced a mountain of physics idiots. Principles of Logic are far better than observations and formulas and equations. For, notice, that the electricity had a pole and a opposite pole of what they called the positron versus their 0.5MeV particle. So they had two particles of opposite pole, but, they somehow wanted to be stupid about having two poles for magnetism. And this brings up a whole new Logic Principle.
71) Principle of Close Loop Symmetry, the Circuit of Physics. Electricity never never exists unless it is closed loop circuit. The electricity inside a capacitor is a closed loop. The electricity in a wire is a closed loop circuit. In order to have a closed loop circuit you must have a north pole and a south pole, a positron and its opposite direction particle what Old Physics called the 0.5MeV particle. So, by logic, if we have electricity having two poles, we must have magnetism with two poles. Since we have the existence of a positron pole, and the existence of its opposite pole in electricity, we likewise must have the existence of a north magnetic monopole and a south magnetic monopole. In fact, the positron itself is the north magnetic monopole and the Thomson particle of 0.5MeV is the south magnetic monopole.
72) Let me change direction here for a moment and talk about mistakes and errors of mathematics used in Old Physics. Of course, well all the mathematics ever used in physics comes from a math form of A = B*C*D and that form is the math of volume of geometry space....
73) Sigma Error is part of probability and statistics theory, but was seen as a outlier in Old Physics. Seen as a practice, not as a internal feature of physics. And that is a shame because if someone had paid more attention to the practice of Sigma Error in experiments and observations, then the discovery the real proton is 840MeV not 938 and the real electron is the muon at 105MeV, would have been discovered earlier than AP's 2016-2017 discovery. AP's second most famous science discovery after the Atom Totality. For it was the notice of AP that 938 is close to 945, and that 105 subtract 940 is the proton mass in MeV, all well under Sigma Error.
74) Sigma Error Logic Principle in Physics: If we come so close in numbers to related phenomenon such as 945/938 = sigma error of 0.7%, then we take that as the true proton 840MeV, true electron is muon at 105MeV. The related phenomenon is 9 x 105 = 945, implying that there are 9 rings, 9 muon rings involved in proton and muon.
75) Divisional Numeric and Coefficient Relationship of Physics Constants. This is an extremely important math to physics relationship all invented by AP in the course of writing his books of science. An example here goes a long way in understanding. The Planck constant, the speed of light constant, the Boltzmann constant, the Fine Structure Constant all come easily from EM constant numbers. See my several books published on how they are derived.
76) The Light Wave as a closed loop circuit has not been understood in Old Physics. Their light wave was like an arrow with a front head and a rear tail. In New Physics the light wave is like a closed loop extension cord of electricity. Long and thin, but still a closed loop. This geometry is extremely important for it misguided Old Physics into thinking the Double Slit Experiment was mysterious when it was not. Misguided Old Physics into thinking "slow light" was mysterious when it was not for if you turn off the switch in a BEC slow light experiment, all the light disappears in the experiment, even the light inside the BEC. And quantum entanglement is now crystal clear as the connection all along the closed loop and the source.
77) We know half as much about the Tesla coil for wireless electricity transmission that we should know, by now. We spend far far too much time and money on superconductivity and fusion energy which is rumdummy science, because superconductivity is not the BCS b.s., no, but is merely capacitor theory. Superconductivity is just capacitor science, nothing more and we spend too much time and money on it, when we should be spending it on Tesla coil wireless electricity. The fusion energy is another huge squander of time and money, since the universe is a Faraday Law, not a fusion world. We should spend and devote our time on Tesla coil, especially when our Sun is now in a Red Giant phase which is quite noticeable in 2020 with the loss of 25% of insect biomass in the past 10 years.
78) Red Giant phase of stars starts once a star reaches a mass of 2*10^33 grams. Our Sun has initiated that phase and all life on Earth will go extinct or vanish unless it moves to the outskirts of the Solar System. We have evidence of this in the loss of 25% of all Insect biomass in just the past decade. Vast losses of song birds whose eyes cannot bear that amount of UV. And we see it in accelerated polar ice melt due to a 0.005% yearly rise in solar radiation.
79) The Old Physics mistake of thinking starpower is due to fusion is all wrong and such a big mistake that it may cost humanity the price of extinction and oblivion, should humanity not colonize Europa, Mars, Pluto in time.
80) A Titius-Bode Rule of Star Systems also has a 4 then 4 rule for mass, the first four are rocky planets, the next 4 are gas giants not because of the stupid silly General Relativity, but because all of physics is electricity and magnetism driven physics. Where the spacing of planets is a Titius-Bode Rule because that is a Balmer-Rydberg sequence of spectral lines also electricity and magnetism driven.
81) The Rydberg sequence predicts the most massive planet comes within the second 4 then 4 astrobodies.
82) The Rydberg constant is more precisely that of the pure scale number 10000000 m^-1 and not the number value 10973731 m^-1. This must be so because the speed of light is precisely the value of 3.16*10^8m/s as the coefficient is exactly the square root of 10 = 3.1622776...
83) Angular Momentum is really Electric Field, and Force per meter as strength of force is really Magnetic Field.
84) Double Slit Experiment error: Old Physics thought of a light ray as ^v^v^v^v^v^ that is open ended, not closed. And that viewpoint of light causes all those impossible and unexplainable mysteries in the Double Slit Experiment. On the other hand, if you go to explain the Double Slit with light as a closed loop straight line segment, all the mysteries disappear. So the idea that all of the Double Slit Experiment strangeness is solved and resolved by simply recognizing light wave as a thin closed loop ray, whose source is part of the closed loop.
85) The Bohr-Rutherford Model in Old Physics was all wrong with its 0.5MeV as electrons jumping orbitals to cause spectral lines, when the true model is the AP Model of proton toruses with muons inside creating electricity in Faraday Law and it is this electricity that sometimes is seen as a spectral line. And the nucleus of atoms in the Rutherford Model was wrong for the atoms are large toruses with smaller toruses inside the larger ones.
86) The Schrodinger Equation is of limited use, for it is a description of the magnetic monopoles of the 0.5MeV particles. It is entirely embedded as a subset of the AP-EM Equations.
87) The Dirac Equation is of limited use, for it is about the relativistic effects of magnetic monopoles. And ironically Dirac who was hunting down the existence of monopoles, ironically, his equation was all about those monopoles. Again, like the Schrodinger Equation, the Dirac Equation is entirely embedded in the AP-EM Equations.
88) All the physical constants of Nature in electricity and magnetism form are related to one another, so that one derives another.
89) Four Quantum Numbers, N, L, m_L and m_s are descriptions of magnetic monopoles, dipoles, photons and nothing to do with electron= muon or proton.
90) Much of polar ice melt is not Global Warming of fossil fuel burning but more about the 0.005% yearly increase in Sun's radiation, as Red Giant phase initiation.
91) Truth about gravity as mechanism is the Sun creates a magnetic field track, and the planets follow in that path of the field track at their distance from the Sun, and what pushes and pulls the planets in those magnetic field tracks is the electric field which is angular momentum, as electricity shoot from the Sun pushing and pulling the planet along in its magnetic field track.
92) Pulsars in Old Physics were miserably interpreted as millisecond spin neutron stars. In New Physics, pulsars are advanced alien life forms that evacuated their home planet due to red giant phase and are living in colonies distant from the red giant and the pulsed beat is their Tesla power grid system.
93) Since the sun and stars are powered by Faraday law and not by fusion, the Red Giant phase of stars sets in much earlier than as thought under the fusion delusion. This is alarming and terribly important if humanity wants to stay alive or go extinct. Latest estimates are that humanity must colonize Mars, Europa, Pluto within the next 1 million years with sustained colonies that do not need Earth any longer.
94) The pulsars we see in astronomy are actually advance intelligent aliens who colonized the outskirts and fringes of their own star system and are pulsing wireless electricity between their own colonies in a Tesla Power Grid System. We see this as pulsars.
95) In news of 2020 that Earth lost 25% of the total insect biomass in the prior decade, and linking up that fact with the NASA data of a increase in Solar radiation of 0.005% per year for the past decade, implies that the Sun has initiated Red Giant phase. It is unclear whether the planet Earth is made uninhabitable in 1-10 million years or for sure in 140 million years. Old Physics pegged the Red Giant phase in 4 billion years. AP peggs the phase starting 2020. We will go extinct unless we can colonize Mars, Europa, Pluto.
96) We have evidence the Sun initiated Red Giant Phase by the 0.005% yearly increase in Solar Radiation. And is the cause behind a 25% total die off of insects in the decade of 2010 to 2020.
97) We need to save all wild plant and wild animal species in order to make the colonization of Mars, Europa, Pluto go as smooth as possible. Not meaning that we will take all that diverse life to those astro bodies, but that every species may have some genetic coding that is needed in our new homes on Mars, Europa, Pluto.
98) Pulsars are rare, and that means most life on planets becomes incinerated by their star. If humanity meets that fate, it is oblivion and all that was life on Earth, total Oblivion, except for those spacecrafts still roaming Space that came from humanity.
99) Earth needs a new political power structure to handle the colonization, for we cannot send 7.5 billion humans up there. So we need population controls for the next million years and to save bio-diversity in order to make the transition smooth as possible. The new government form should be a Science Council form, the seen in Superman movies. And the EU at present is a primitive Science Council form of government.
100) Global Warming from fossil fuel is real, but alongside it and more dangerous is the yearly 0.005% increase in Solar Radiation. And it only gets worse, for some year it will go to 0.006% increase, by the time it reaches 0.01% or 0.02% yearly increase, most of life on Earth will have perished.
101) Drones can fly in outer space on lithium batteries as propulsion.
102) There is Magnetic Acceleration Law, when you thrust a bar magnet into another bar magnet of like-poles, the distance scattered on the floor is 460mm versus attraction joining at 80mm (magnets of 10mm by 10mm diameter and 20mm by 10mm diameter.
103) A whole-scale revision of Units of Old Physics, for they missed a current term A in Newton's F=ma, and a Coulomb term in Electric Field as kg*m^2/C*s, where C =A*s.
104) F= ma is missing a current term and should be F = m*a*i or F = m*a*(1/A). This allows F=ma to cover both particle and wave nature. For we have a term of (1/(A*s)) which is a frequency of current and allows us to write Force as being F = m*v*(1/(A*s))
105) A unification of Units in New Physics is required, for the term A, current is likely to be involved in most units of importance, such as F= ma.
106) Light is a closed loop circuit, although very much looking like a straight arrow open ended ray, it is not, but a closed loop circuit as proven by turning the light source off in a BEC slow light experiment.
107) Testing and research is ongoing to see if a lithium battery powered drone can fly from the surface of Earth all the way up to the International Space Station, and, and of course beyond, riding the magnetic and electric fields of outer space, plus the Solar Wind.
108) The mistake by physicists in thinking starpower is caused by fusion of atoms inside of stars is a costly error, for starpower is caused by the Faraday Law, and time is ticking with the Sun gone Red Giant Initiation Phase, for the clock is winding down on whether Humanity wants to live or turn into dust.
109) The Nebular Dust Cloud theory of Solar System origins was a fakery of Old Physics, for all we have to do is see the systematic Titius-Bode Rule and the systematic mass and distance ordering of the satellites of the various planets to realize gravity is a spectral line pattern with a Faraday law origin of Sun, planets and satellites.
110) The spacing of planets relative to their star is a Spectral line spacing, as well as satellites from their parent planet. The most often occurring spacing sequence is 4 lines for the first 4 astro bodies then the next 4 lines spacing containing the most massive bodies, such as Sun then 4 terrestrial planets, then 4 gas giants.
111) The AP-EM equations of physics and mathematics. They replace the error ridden Maxwell Equations.
If you desire, you can replace E, electric field with L, angular momentum. Where V is voltage, i or A is current, C= amount of current A*s, B is magnetic field, E is electric field, kg is kilogram mass, m is meters, s is seconds
a) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field B = kg /A*s^2
b) V = C*B*E New Ohm's law, law of electricity
c) V' = (C*B*E)' Capacitor Law of Physics
d) (V/C*E)' = B' Ampere-Maxwell law
e) (V/(B*E))' = C' Faraday law
f) (V/(C*B))' = E' the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force
PHYSICS LAWS
a) Facts of chemistry and physics
b) Voltage V = kg*m^2/(A*s^3)
c) Amount of current C = A*s = magnetic monopoles
d) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field B = kg /(A*s^2)
e) Electric Field E = kg m^2/(C*s)
f) V = C*B*E New Ohm's law, law of electricity
g) V' = (C*B*E)' Capacitor Law of Physics
h) (V/C*E)' = B' Ampere-Maxwell law
i) (V/(B*E))' = C' Faraday law
j) (V/(C*B))' = E' the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force
112) The units of Old Physics, most of them are missing either a current term, A=i, or a amount of current term C.
113) The true units of Energy = kg*m^2/(A*s^2) and the correct units of Electric Field E is E= kg*m^2/(C*s).
114) The true units of Force is kg*m/A*s^2 but where the A in denominator needs to be (A/m) as per the definition of current over a distance length of meters. This allows Force to be equivalent to energy, electric field, and angular momentum, all four concepts that obey the conservation principle of physics.
115) You cannot have in physics a unification of 4 forces, unless force itself obeys conservation principle.
116) It is easy to prove the Sun shines from Faraday Law, not fusion because of the broad bandwidth of Solar radiation from radio to UV, mostly Visible Light, whereas fusion would be a narrow bandwidth with much X-ray and gamma ray. And this simple proof of starpower as Faraday law also is a disproof of Big Bang theory, for the universe does not have two mechanisms of growth-- Faraday law with Big Bang.
117) Two Math Forms, the A=BCD for voltage and volume and the x^2/A^2 for motion path, both forms found in the AP-EM equations of 4 differential equations of (1) V' = (iBE)' (2) i' = (V/BE)' (3) B' = (V/iE)' and (4) E'= (V/iB)'.
118) The AP Principle of Maximum Electricity Production inside of atoms of their muon thrusting through proton coil of Faraday Law is true and the proof is all atoms are metals at 0 degree Kelvin and metal atoms are toruses.
119) The principle of Maximum Electricity determines the chemical bond.
120) Physics lead the way in science by Planck's1900 rising claim of quantum mechanics which entails a discrete space, yet everyone in physics still uses the mindless idiotic continuum by using Old Math's mindless "limit on a calculus that is wrong through and through". Physicists proved Discrete Space, so why not use a Discrete Calculus.
121) Since atoms have no nucleus for in the Rutherford-Geiger-Marsden 1911 experiment with gold foil hit by alpha particles, the high angle of rebound was due to alpha particles colliding elastically head-on with a chain of muons circling inside proton toruses.
122) Since atoms have no nucleus begs the question of atomic energy and the atomic bomb which is explained as the atomic bomb is a short-circuited battery. This implies that atomic bombs the size of button batteries can be built and short-circuited.
123) The Hertzsprung-Russell diagram in Old Astronomy of the sequence of stars and how they evolve is utterly wrong for it is based on fusion as starpower when in fact it is the Faraday law of every muon inside of every proton producing magnetic monopoles that gives rise to starpower. And the silly mistake of graphing temperature versus luminosity of stars. Because temperature and luminosity are almost the same thing. It would be like graphing speed in km/hour as x-axis and meters/second on y-axis and expect a meaningful graph.
124) AP is reinventing Multivariable Calculus because the AP-EM Equations demand a new math of Multivariable Calculus, and see AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 1st year College textbook for details. So that AP throws on the trash pile the Green's theorem, Gradient theorem, Stokes theorem, Divergence theorem, manifolds, Line integrals, div, curl, and also vectors, throws them all out and replaces all of Multivariable Calculus with the simple easy notion that the calculus on polynomials is a polynomial solution. For example Y = x^2 and the derivative is the simple solution Y =2x, another polynomial, so there never was a need for a incomprehensible multivariable calculus.
125) Direct Current DC is a double transverse wave while AC, alternating current is a longitudinal wave.
126) Static electricity is monopole, open loops, while dynamic electricity is closed loops of two monopoles making dipoles.
127) Physicists never learned much logic to apply to the Ancient Greek theory of Atoms, "all things are atoms, logically suggest, the universe itself is a thing and thus a atom". Never learned, never applied logic.
128) We set up a matrix of the terms in Voltage = Coulomb x magnetic Field B x electric field E = CBE and the all possible permutations of differential equations C', B', E', V'. We set this matrix up in order to help interpret what each term means.
V'BE/(BE)^2 - VB'E/(BE)^2 - VBE'/(BE)^2
current production - Lenz law - DC, AC direction
V'CE/(CE)^2 - VC'E/(CE)^2 - VCE')/(CE)^2
B production - Displacement current - parallel attract
V'CB/(CB)^2 - VC'B/(CB)^2 - VCB'/(CB)^2
(E production = inverse square of distance) - synchronicity - push versus pull
C'BE + CB'E + CBE'
V production + DC current of dipoles from monopoles + AC current dipoles from monopoles
129) Now the proof that 3rd dimension is the largest and last dimension possible comes best from physics, more so than mathematics. Although in math we can see that a perpendicular to 3rd dimension remains a part of 3rd dimension and nothing new is built from adding a perpendicular.
But in Physics the proof is far more compelling. For it trespasses unto Electromagnetic theory of the speed of light. Do we have the speed of light a maximum constant and thus Special Relativity is true and allowing the existence of electricity and magnetism. Or, do we accept 4th dimension and higher, and toss out EM theory onto the trash pile. So here we have the choice of EM theory, the daily electricity we all use, or the choice of accepting 4th and higher dimension.
Because the physics proof that 4th and higher dimensions can not exist is that the speed of light is a constant, meaning, that it has no acceleration. Speed is meter/second. The derivative of calculus of speed is acceleration. So acceleration is meter/second^2. Acceleration is found in Force F = ma. Force is a subset of Energy where E =mv^2 or E = mc^2. Acceleration, force, energy are all 2nd dimensional inside of a 3rd dimensional Space-time. If a 4th dimension exists, then the units of Energy would have to be mccc not mcc. The speed of light would have to have acceleration in order to have a Force = mass x derivative of acceleration. The speed of light would have to be a variable for 4th dimension to exist of meter/second^2. For 4th dimension to exist, the light speed is no longer a maximum constant.
In Old Physics, they played a fool's game by saying time was the 4th dimension to 3 spatial dimensions. This is wrong for the derivative of speed is a time derivative and is exactly why 4th dimension cannot exist for it makes light speed a variable. And in Old Physics they played another game of calling higher dimensions curled up as the reason we cannot see them. This again is a fool's game.
Experiment to prove no 4th dimension.
We can actually devise a physics experiment to prove no 4th dimension or higher. We notice that a light beam or a star, or our Sun, radiates energy in light waves. We can theoretically determine how much light our Sun is supposed to radiate. If a 4th dimension exists, that dimension would decrease the amount of light than if we had just 3 dimensions. Because each higher dimension absorbs light radiation. Think of light as water as a analogy. So one dimension would be a sluice box of water. And second dimension would be a field. Third dimension would be all of Earth. So as the dimensions increase, you need more water to fill the more dimensions. Same thing with light, we can calculate what a radioactive decay beta emitter produces (beta is magnetic monopoles, not atom electrons). We know beta emissions and how much light they give. If the Universe is 3rd dimension and no more, then we observe how much light from beta emitters. If the Universe has a 4th dimension, much of the beta emission in radioactivity will go to filling 4th dimension and we would see less light than if the Universe was just 3rd dimension.
130) Reincarnation is a true valid science of physics.
131) All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but Electricity and Magnetism.
Prayer: Carbon in us, carbon of Plutonium. Fill us with life anew, that we may love what thou dost love, and do what you superdetermine us to do. Oxygen, oxygen of Plutonium, make us wholly thine, take us to the torus heaven divine. Plutonium in us, atom plutonium, thus shall we never die, but live with thee, part in your neutron serenity, part in your proton muon divinity. Atom
AP
King of Science
y z
| /
| /
|/______ x
More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.
In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.
I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.
There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content).
Michael Moroney
Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> fails at math and science:
> PHYSICSOPEDIA -- List of 131 fakes and mistakes of Old Physics. AP's 175th book; soon to be published as a Kindle book.
>
>
2) Ludwig Hansen
3) Ludwig van Ludvig
4) Ludwig Plutonium
5) Archimedes Plutonium
6) Archimedes Plutonium
...
131) Archimedes Plutonium
Michael Moroney
garbage and proclaiming that it's the truth. If you know what I mean...
Archimedes Plutonium
Physics, left up to Baez and his physics failure buddies of Weinberg, Glashow, Gell-Mann, Peter Higgs, Ed Witten those buddies are comfortable with a electron at 0.5MeV, proton at 938MeV, neutron at 940MeV and all three of them as "do nothing particles" with the amazing audacity of saying the 0.5MeV particle flys around the outside of a 938MeV proton at nearly the speed of light 99.99% speed of light, yet never flys off. For Baez, and his buddies never understood Angular Momentum. Never could interpret 9 x 105 = 938 or 940 within Sigma Error.
But then along comes AP, and says-- sigma error is important in physics and use it.
AP says-- you cannot have "do nothing particles in physics".
Is John Baez or Sheldon Glashow or Peter Higgs or Ed Witten still able to learn in science, or are they just complete washed-up and washed-out worthless has-beens of failed physics. Are they complete wash out failures of physics and is retarding the physics community just as they are retards of physics itself? Probably complete failures because they cannot even muster the intelligence of dropping a Kerr or Mason lid inside a folded up paper cone and acknowledge something as simple as what a High School student can prove, that a slant cut in cone is a Oval, never the ellipse, (see AP books below). Yet that is what the "pack of fools Baez, Glashow, Higgs, Witten" still teach their electron is 0.5MeV, their ellipse is slant cut in cone, but probably worst of all, these bozos still teach the Boole logic of 2 OR 1= 3 with AND as subtraction. Imagine that, physics professors who cannot even think logically correct, no wonder they are incapable of 9 x 105.
74th published book
HISTORY OF THE PROTON MASS and the 945 MeV //Atom Totality series, book 3 Kindle Edition
I first heard of the Schrodinger equation in college chemistry class. We never actually did any problem solving with the equation, and we were only told about it. Then taking physics my next year in college and after I bought the Feynman Lectures on Physics, just for fun for side reading, three volume set did I learn what this Schrodinger equation and the Psi^2 wavefunction was about. I am not going to teach the mathematics of the Schrodinger equation and the math calculations of the Psi or Psi^2 in this book, but leave that up to the reader or student to do that from Feynman's Lectures on Physics. The purpose of this book is to give a new and different interpretation of what Psi^2 is, what Psi^2 means. Correct interpretation of physics experiments and observations turns out to be one of the most difficult tasks in all of physics.
Cover Picture: a photograph taken of me in 1993, after the discovery of Plutonium Atom Totality, and I was 43 years old then, on a wintery hill of New Hampshire. It is nice that Feynman wrote a physics textbook series, for I am very much benefitting from his wisdom. If he had not done that, getting organized in physics by writing textbooks, I would not be writing this book. And I would not have discovered the true meaning of the Fine Structure Constant, for it was Feynman who showed us that FSC is really 0.0854, not that of 0.0072. All because 0.0854 is Psi, and Psi^2 is 0.0072.
Length: 20 pages
Product details
• ASIN : B0875SVDC7
• Publication date : April 15, 2020
• Language: : English
• File size : 1134 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print length : 20 pages
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #240,066 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #5 in 30-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #65 in General Chemistry & Reference
◦ #481 in Physics (Kindle Store)
#1-6, 135th published book
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Since the real true electron of atoms is the muon and is a one ring bar magnet thrusting through the 8 ring torus of a proton, we need a whole entire new model of the hydrogen atom. Because the Bohr model with the 0.5MeV particle jumping orbitals as the explanation of Spectral Lines is all wrong. In this vacuum of explaining spectral line physics, comes the AP Model which simply states that the hydrogen atom creates Spectral lines because at any one instant of time 4 of the 8 proton rings is "in view" and the electricity coming from those 4 view rings creates spectral line physics.
What I am doing is clearing the field of physics, clearing it of all the silly mistakes and errors and beliefs that clutter up physics. Clearing it of its fraud and fakeries and con-artistry. I thought of doing these textbooks starting with Senior year High School, wherein I myself started learning physics. But because of so much fraud and fakery in physics education, I believe we have to drop down to Junior year High School to make a drastic and dramatic emphasis on fakery and con-artistry that so much pervades science and physics in particular. So that we have two years in High School to learn physics. And discard the nonsense of physics brainwash that Old Physics filled the halls and corridors of education.
Product details
• ASIN : B08PC99JJB
• Publication date : November 29, 2020
• Language: : English
• File size : 682 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print length : 78 pages
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #185,995 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #42 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #344 in Physics (Kindle Store)
◦ #2,160 in Physics (Books)
#2-3, 146th published book
Kindle Edition
I believe that in knowing the history of a science is knowing half of that science. And that if you are amiss of knowing the history behind a science, you have only a partial understanding of the concepts and ideas behind the science. I further believe it is easier to teach a science by teaching its history than any other means of teaching. So for senior year High School, I believe physics history is the best way of teaching physics. And in later years of physics courses, we can always pick up on details. So I devote this senior year High School physics to a history of physics, but only true physics. And there are few books written on the history of physics, so I chose Asimov's The History of Physics, 1966 as the template book for this textbook. Now Asimov's book is full of error and mistakes, and that is disappointing but all of Old Physics is full of error. On errors and mistakes of Old Physics, the best I can do is warn the students, and the largest warning of all is that whenever someone in Old Physics says "electron" what they are talking about is really the Dirac magnetic monopole. And whenever they talk about the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom, they are talking about huge huge grave mistakes, for the true atom is protons as 8 ringed toruses with a muon stuck inside of a proton doing the Faraday law and producing those magnetic monopoles as electricity. I use Asimov's book as a template but in the future, I hope to rewrite this textbook using no template at all, that is if I have time in the future.
Cover Picture: Is the book The History of Physics, by Isaac Asimov, 1966 and on top of the book are 4 cut-outs of bent circles representing magnetic monopoles which revolutionizes modern physics, especially the ElectroMagnetic theory.
Product details
• ASIN : B08RK33T8V
• Publication date : December 28, 2020
• Language : English
• File size : 794 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print length : 123 pages
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #4,167,235 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #15,099 in Physics (Kindle Store)
◦ #91,163 in Physics (Books)
True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 Kindle Edition
| /
| /
|/______ x
More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.
In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.
I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.
Archimedes Plutonium
152nd published book
The 6th Regular Polyhedron-- hexagonal faces at infinity// Math proof series, book 12 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Format: Kindle Edition
Preface: This is my 152nd book of science an exciting book, and it came out of the clear blue. The writing of it took a mere week's time and it is a byproduct of my 151st book of science, TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 1st year College. Although my 151st book took me over a year to write, this book took just 1 week to write. Difference being that of a textbook versus that of a book on a specific topic, is 50 times more difficult because a textbook takes so much time in organizing, order, and fitting together pieces, each chapter in fact, whereas a single topic science book is like writing a prose story and is 50 times easier to write than a textbook.
While I was doing 151st, I noticed and emphasized that all of physics is determined by 6 laws of physics, and the first principle of physics is All is Atom and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. Then we notice that 6 laws cover all of physics, 6 laws of electricity and magnetism. We notice that all of logic and math is covered by 6 operators. And then we look at geometry's regular polyhedrons and find there are only 5 known regular polyhedron with a proof in Old Math that a 6th Regular Polyhedron cannot exist. An actual proof in Old Math that a 6th cannot exist.
Well, AP knows better. For AP knows that if all of Physics is written in the language of just 6 laws and all of logic and mathematics are covered by 6 operators. That AP knows Old Math made a mistake in thinking they proved 5 regular polyhedron were all that exist as regular polyhedron. So Old Math made some or several mistakes in their so called proof that 5 and only 5 regular polyhedron exist, and that is what this book covers, the 6th regular polyhedron of the world, what it is, and what it looks like.
Warning: the entire book is written from a sequential dated notebook, so if you read something early on, I may have changed my mind on the idea near the end. This is not a textbook, but a notebook of discovery and read it for its history.
Cover Picture: is my iphone photograph of a soccer ball of 20 hexagons, 12 pentagons; and a glass ball covered by netting of tiny hexagons. Both objects I use in experiments of proving the 6th Regular Polyhedron.
Product details
• ASIN : B09K4PWKVK
• Publication date : October 21, 2021
• Language : English
• File size : 828 KB
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
3rd published book
AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.
Length: 21 pages
File Size: 1620 KB
Print Length: 21 pages
Publication Date: March 11, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PLSDQWC
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 19May2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.
Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?
Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.
Length: 137 pages
Product details
ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
Publication date : March 14, 2019
Language : English
File size : 1307 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 137 pages
Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 1:19:17 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of
Re: 2-Jill does not have to be a geometry failure like Ken Ribet Re: 1- AMS, Jill Pipher, Ken Ribet, Robert L. Bryant, David Vogan, Eric M. Friedlander, why not go for the truth of mathematics-- the slant cut in cone is a oval, never the ellipse.
By Dan Christensen Nov 15, 2019, 11:01:13 AM
3rd published book
AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.
Length: 21 pages
File Size: 1620 KB
Print Length: 21 pages
Publication Date: March 11, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PLSDQWC
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 19May2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.
Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?
Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.
Length: 137 pages
Product details
ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
Publication date : March 14, 2019
Language : English
File size : 1307 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 137 pages
Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
By Dan Christensen 1 post 3 views updated 1:12 PM
Christensen thanking AP for fixing Trigonometry
Re: 3Textbook: Let us Thank AP for fixing Trigonometry where 95% of trigonometry was muddleheaded wrong.
Feb 16, 2019,
by Dan Christensen
On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 9:51:20 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim
Christensen victimizing McGill Univ and Michael Meighen
Re: 176,232-Student Victims of Michael Meighen McGill Univ by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus... 0.5MeV electron when in truth it is the muon as the real electron
by Dan Christensen Jul 2, 2021, 9:47:42 AM
On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 9:51:20 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim
On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 1:34:52 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim
On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
> Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass
> of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.
On Monday, October 21, 2019 at 1:29:49 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
>
> Are you ready, kids??? Bend over, er...
>
> Dan
Re: Markus Klyver greatest math fool of Sweden-- thinks an ellipse is a conic section
by Dan Christensen Aug 2, 2017, 11:52:21 PM
Re: What mindless jerk Pentcho Valev can never grasp is a variable speed of light destroys Electromagnetic equations, you lose electricity and magnetism, but try telling that to mindless nitwits full of hatred and no brains
by Dan Christensen Aug 3, 2021, 9:37 PM
Re: 1.1Dr. John Baez is a failed mathematician-physicist with his proton of 938MeV when it is 840MeV, electron= muon //his ellipse is a conic when it never was// as phony in math and physics as kibo Parry Moroney's ellipse and Christensen 10 OR 4 =
by Dan Christensen Sep 22, 2019, 9:54:06 AM
Re: A newsgroup like sci.math is a pile of shit when you have paid stalkers like Kibo Parry M. or Dan Christensen lording over sci.math as if he owns the place-- stalking and attacking posters 7-24-365. This is why I now post a roadmap to AP's newsgr
by Alan Mackenzie Jun 29, 2021, 2:36:04 PM
Re: 1.2Analbuttfuckmanure Justin Trudeau,Sophie Gregoire, says Dan Christensen or Kibo//Stephen Lecce, Jan Mináč, Victoria Olds, Martin Pinsonnault, Lex Renner, David Riley, Rasul Shafikov, Gordon Sinnamon
by Hoofington P. McSnort Aug 26, 2020, 7:01:28 PM
Re: More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics.
by Dan Christensen Jun 28, 2021, 2:33 PM
Re: 2- Dan Christensen on failed math MIT Gilbert Strang, with his scatterbrained Calculus books, no geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, because Gilbert never knew
by Chris M. Thomasson 6:09 PM On 6/25/2021
Re: Dan Christensen says close all math, physics, chemistry dept. in ALL Canadian Colleges with their fake electron (muon is real electron), fake geometry proof of calculus (Old Math sums up 0 width rectangles), fake Lewis 8 Structure (dissociation...
by Giant Radioactive Easter Bunnie Jan 21, 2021, 5:38:37 PM
Re: Stewart failed Calculus also, and his book should be removed
by Dan Christensen
Jun 24, 2018, 10:52:49 PM
Re: Fire the entire Univ Western Ontario math dept/ still teaching that 1 OR 2 = 3, when every kid knows 1 AND 2 =3/ still teaching a ellipse is conic-- when it is oval
by Quadibloc
Nov 16, 2017, 9:53:05 PM
On Monday, October 21, 2019 at 1:29:49 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
>
> Are you ready, kids??? Bend over, er...
>
> Dan
Re: 81,045-Student victims of Rose M. Patten Univ Toronto from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Univ Toronto, physics, Gordon F. West, Michael B. Walker
by Frank Cassa 12Apr2021 7:00 AM
Re: 7,744-Student victims of Linda Hasenfratz Univ Western Ontario from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Chancellor Linda Hasenfratz President Alan Shepard
11:53 AM 10Apr2021
by Wayne Decarlo
Re: 102,852-Student victims of Dominic Barton, Univ Waterloo from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Dominic Barton, President Feridun Hamdullahpur physics
by konyberg Apr 15, 2021, 3:09:41 PM
Re: 176,232-Student Victims of Michael Meighen McGill Univ by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus... 0.5MeV electron when in truth it is the muon as the real electron
by Dan Christensen Jul 2, 2021, 9:47:42 AM
Re: 135,568 Student victims Queen's Univ. James Leech, Arthur B. McDonald by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- his mindless electron =0.5MeV when real electron of
May 10, 2021
by Professor Wordsmith
Re: 135,566 Student victims Queen's Univ. James Leech, Arthur B. McDonald by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- his mindless electron =0.5MeV when real electron o
May 10, 2021
by Michael Moroney
Re: Proof of Kepler Packing//Jan Burse-Alzheimer faggot//ETH Zurich, Dietmar Salamon, Martin Schweizer, Mete Soner, looking at it
by Dan Christensen Jul 9, 2017, 11:34:05 PM
Re: *Fire the entire Univ Western Ontario math dept/ still teaching that the contradictory sine graph as sinusoid when it is really semicircle
by Dan Christensen Nov 21, 2017,
Re: Spamming fuckdog Dan Christensen says fire Stanford's John Lipa, Alexander Fetter, William Little, Douglas Osheroff, David Ritson, H. Alan Schwettman, John Turneaure, Robert Wagoner, Stanley Wojcicki, Mason Yearian rather than let them brainwash our
by Mutt Buncher
Re: Bill Blair, David Vigneault please help us put Dan Christensen into a Canadian Asylum or psychiatric treatment where he belongs
By Donald Trump 2 posts 24 views updated 12:33 AM
Re: 1Canadian Stalker DAN anal buttfuckmanure CHRISTENSEN stalk reports::: 6 year stalker
By Zelos Malum 30 posts 449 views updated 9:01 PM
Re: software that engineers out stalking bullies on Twitter, Facebook, Google Newsgroups Re: Michael Moroney Anal ButtfuckManure stalker for 26 years
By Dan Christensen 50 posts 951 views updated 8:56 PM
Re: UWO,Drs.Hasenfratz, Shepherd, Chakma, Barmby, Basu, Brown, Buchel, Adamus, Barron are you not ashamed that Christensen still teaches fakery of ellipse to UWO students
By Antonio J. Buckfutter 2 posts 9 views updated 2:52 PM
Re: Warning to Dan Christensen do not harpoon "Right" Whales of Canada, and does PM Trudeau need to put Dan in jail or asylum???
By Henrietta Foreskineater 2 posts 2 views updated 11:35 PM
Re: Dan Christensen harpooning the beautiful Blue Whales of Canada, why does not PM Trudeau put Dan in jail or asylum???
By Henrietta Foreskineater 2 posts 4 views updated 11:33 PM
Re: the stealing ways of John Gabriel//Theft & Stealing ideas of science in the era of the internet// Ways to prevent and combat stealing Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
By Dan Christensen 21 posts 111 views updated 3:56 AM
Re: 2-Jill does not have to be a geometry failure like Ken Ribet Re: 1- AMS, Jill Pipher, Ken Ribet, Robert L. Bryant, David Vogan, Eric M. Friedlander, why not go for the truth of mathematics-- the slant cut in cone is a oval, never the ellipse.
By Dan Christensen Nov 15, 2019, 11:01:13 AM
Re: How safe are Canadian students from NOT being cornholed by Dan Christensen and his 12 Angry Men
By Alex 4 posts 13 views updated
Re: Kibo poofster call for Dan Christensen on DC Logic line2 Dan, with their 10 Poofsters OR 4 Poofsters = 14 Poofsters and Kibo's 8.88 poofsters is short of 9 poofsters by 12%// No wonder Canada has not confirmed real proton 840MeV not 938
By Andy Smith 1 post 27 views updated 8:30 PM
Re: 1-Is Dan Christensen the leader of this Homosexual stalker ring in sci.math causing decay of sci.math??//and suppressing real science of confirming real proton is 840 MeV, real electron is the muon= 105MeV, and the .5MeV was Dirac's magnetic monopole (1)
By Homosexual Stalker Oct 7, 2019, 9:46:12 PM
Re: 1.2-Why Dr. Thomas Hales is bozo clown of geometry-- thinks a ellipse is a conic then drains the coffers of College math depts for his foolish computer programs on the level of kibo Parry Moroney and Dan Christensen
By Roy Masters 2 posts 17 views updated 8:36 PM
Re: 1.0-Dr. Andrew Wiles is a failed mathematician and his FLT proof is as phony as kibo Parry Moroney's ellipse is a conic, and as phony as Dan Christensen 10 OR 4 = 14. Dr. Wiles is a disgrace to mathematics for teaching students the ellipse is a conic
By Roy Masters 2 posts 12 views updated 8:34 PM
Re: Justin Trudeau new to the job of Prime Minister of Canada, but insane stalker Dan Christensen has been stalking nigh 10 years now
By Commander Kinsey 1 post 3 views updated 12:59 PM
Re: 1.6 Dan Christensen wants you to fail McGill Univ//not confirm real proton = 840MeV, real electron=105MeV, .5MeV was Dirac's monopole// Christensen distracting Drs. Agarwal,Brandenberger,Brunner,Buchinger,Caron-Huot,Chiang
9/17/19
by Alan Smithee
Re: 2:12:53 Germany's sickfuck Franz//Stefan Halverscheid, Harald Andres Helfgott, Madeleine Jotz Lean of Gottingen do you think 3 OR 2= 5 think 3 AND 2 = 1?? embracing the contradiction Either..Or..Or..Both
By Dan Christensen 21 posts 136 views updated 12:53 AM
Re: Fire the entire Cornell Univ math dept-- unable to even teach Add in Logic is not OR but rather is AND
By Dan Christensen 59 posts 753 views updated 12:46 AM
Re: envy hatred covered by AP's magazine journal for May//AP's periodic journal of fakeries in science: Magazine of science and math fakes foisted on general public Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
By Dan Christensen 6 posts 40 views updated Sep 9
Re: 2Canada's sh)thead stalker Dan in sci.math 1 OR 3 = 4, does Justin Trudeau, Silvia Mittler, Els Peeters, is that what science is in Canada-- stalking bullies
By Dan Christensen 37 posts 263 views updated Sep 9
Re: Trump smarter in math than MIT & UC, Riverside Math departments, smarter in math than Terry Tao, Ed Witten, Appel & Hakken
By Dan Christensen 7 posts 71 views updated Sep 9
Re: software that engineers out stalking bullies on Twitter, Facebook, Google Newsgroups Re: Michael Moroney Anal ButtfuckManure stalker for 26 years
By Dan Christensen 34 posts 663 views updated Sep 9
Re: 3Textbook: Let us Thank AP for fixing Trigonometry where 95% of trigonometry was muddleheaded wrong
By Dan Christensen 3 posts 18 views updated Sep 9
Re: 9Der_FartMouth Births-comics for Eric FartFrancis, with snickering by George FartWitte published by ST FARTMARTINS
By Dan Christensen 11 posts 227 views updated Sep 9
Re: Rik Chandler,One pint short of an empty bladder // Harvard's Dr.Hau "slow light", and turning the laser off; I find very comprehensible
By Dan Christensen 19 posts 99 views updated Sep 9
Re: Rik Chandler,Useful as a chocolate teapot // Harvard's Dr.Hau "slow light", and turning the laser off; I find very comprehensible
By Dan Christensen 16 posts 101 views updated Sep 9
Re: Lisa Thompson,Univ Toronto & Western Ontario, Alex Buchel,Jan Cami,Gordon F. West,Michael B. Walker, -- is the reason none of you have confirmed real proton = 840MeV, real electron is the muon and .5MeV was Dirac monopole, to busy on Dan
By Dan Christensen May 22, 2019, 1:12:10 PM
xxxx the zero academic intelligence of Christensen
On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:08:09 AM UTC-6, Peter Percival wrote:
> Dan Christensen wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:47:32 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 8:27:19 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:16:52 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >>>> PAGE58, 8-3, True Geometry / correcting axioms, 1by1 tool, angles of logarithmic spiral, conic sections unified regular polyhedra, Leaf-Triangle, Unit Basis Vector
> >>>>
> >>>> The axioms that are in need of fixing is the axiom that between any two points lies a third new point.
> >>>
> >>> The should be "between and any two DISTINCT points."
> >>>
> >>
> >> What a monsterous fool you are
> >>
> >
> > OMG. You are serious. Stupid and proud of it.
>
> And yet Mr Plutonium is right. Two points are distinct (else they would
> be one) and it is not necessary to say so.
>
On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 2:52:34 PM UTC-5, Peter Percival wrote:
> Dan Christensen wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 12:32:51 PM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >> 1.0-Set theory completely thrown out of science and math
> >>
> >
> > WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science
> >
> > As you can see here, AP really, REALLY wants you to fail in school just like he must have so long ago (in the 1950's or 60's?). Then he would like to recruit you to his sinister Atom God Cult of Failure. Think I'm making this up? IN HIS OWN WORDS:
>
> I like to laugh at people in wheelchairs and people with white sticks.
xxxxkicking the butt
by Dan Christensen
On Friday, May 15, 2015 at 4:06:58 AM UTC-4, William Elliot wrote:
> On Thu, 14 May 2015, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 11:50:44 PM UTC-4, William Elliot wrote:
> > >
> > > > Does anyone know who are the owners of sci.math?
> > >
> > > Capitalist ignorance in a socialist world.
> > > Math Forum archives sci.math and a limited number of other usenet groups.
> > >
> > > Really Dan, I've seen you do interesting math.
> >
> > Thank you. I am working on a couple of math projects that may interest
> > serious readers here, but something really must be done about the
> > infestation here of trolls like John Gabriel. There will be no place left on
> > the internet for serious, open ended discussion of mathematical themes if we
> > they are allowed to operate with impunity here. Kill-files are not the
> > answer for this bunch. Neither are the endless flame wars. We can't ignore
> > them when they post inflammatory nonsense -- we owe it to the newcomers who
> > might be taken in -- but we shouldn't be draw into prolonged "discussions"
> > with them either. This is what I try to do anyway.
>
> Then get to work on them instead of wasting so much time trolling.
> In the next few days, I'll be noticing your noise to signal ratio,
> which, if it remails high, will result in my not seeing any of your
> posts not even your mathematical projects.
The troll alerts don't take much time. I get automatic notice of group updates on browser tabs. On my breaks, it's fun to kick troll butt. I do try to keep engagement with the trolls here to a minimum, though that may not always be apparent. Will try to do better that way. Others can handle the specific details of the trolls' rants if they really must, but I wish they wouldn't get caught up lengthy discussions. As Mark Twain said, "Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."
Dan
On Friday, January 25, 2019 at 8:13:12 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:
> >
>
> I still intend be here to kick some troll butt and to promote the new group as an alternative.
>
>
> Dan
A wise sci.math poster summed up Dan Christensen the best I have seen so far back in 2015
A perfect one paragraph description of the life and non-mind of Dan Christensen
5/15/15
"Dan Christensen" <Dan_Chr...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:65ab07bd-405a-4f45...@googlegroups.com...
- show quoted text -
Sure, keep venting you self-apologetic nazi bollocks between an abuse and
the other. You are simply a moron, and with you, as with any JG, the
strategy remains the same it has always been, a kill-file. You hateful
idiot and spammer: Idiot because you will never understand the actual
dynamics of life and creativity, the subtle tensions of conservation vs.
novelty, and so many more things even less technical and more philosophical
than you could even ever guess that existed; And spammer, because after all
that is all you are, a spammer promoting yourself and your product (despite
you know shit about mathematics and even less about logic), but then add to
that the nazi campaigns which are the really truly disgusting part... As
said, overall a perfect exemplar of the stupid fucking white man and the
guns. (Just get lost: EOD.)
1.5- Dan Christensen, the insane Nazi Canadian bully stalker summed up in one beautiful paragraph
I am not the author of the below description of Dan Christensen, but wish I was. It is written better than I could ever do in one paragraph. The best I could do is a few simple words-- insane Christensen, bully insane.
"Dan Christensen" <Dan_Chr...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:65ab07bd-405a-4f45...@googlegroups.com...
- show quoted text -
Sure, keep venting you self-apologetic nazi bollocks between an abuse and
the other. You are simply a moron, and with you, as with any JG, the
strategy remains the same it has always been, a kill-file. You hateful
idiot and spammer: Idiot because you will never understand the actual
dynamics of life and creativity, the subtle tensions of conservation vs.
novelty, and so many more things even less technical and more philosophical
than you could even ever guess that existed; And spammer, because after all
that is all you are, a spammer promoting yourself and your product (despite
you know shit about mathematics and even less about logic), but then add to
that the nazi campaigns which are the really truly disgusting part... As
said, overall a perfect exemplar of the stupid fucking white man and the
guns. (Just get lost: EOD.)
1
Re: Fire the entire Cornell Univ math dept-- unable to even teach Add in Logic is not OR but rather is AND
53 posts by 9 authors
11/9/17
by Dan Christensen
2
Re: John Horton Conway flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
246 posts by 12 authors 3/12/18
by Dan Christensen
3
Re: 2:12:53 Germany's sickfuck Franz//Stefan Halverscheid, Harald Andres Helfgott, Madeleine Jotz Lean of Gottingen do you think 3 OR 2= 5 think 3 AND 2 = 1?? embracing the contradiction Either..Or..Or..Both
by Dan Christensen
4
Re: software that engineers out stalking bullies on Twitter, Facebook, Google Newsgroups Re: Michael Moroney Anal ButtfuckManure stalker for 26 years
by Dan Christensen
5
Re: 9Der_FartMouth Births-comics for Eric FartFrancis, with snickering by George FartWitte published by ST FARTMARTINS
by Dan Christensen
6
Re: 3Textbook: Let us Thank AP for fixing Trigonometry where 95% of trigonometry was muddleheaded wrong.
Feb 16, 2019,
by Dan Christensen - 2 posts by 2 authors - 13 views
7
Re: Drs.George Janelidze Hans-Peter Kunzi Anton le Roex Univ. Cape Town S.A, smarter than Archie Pu who actually believes the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = monopole
by Dan Christensen
8
Re: Trump smarter in math than MIT & UC, Riverside Math departments, smarter in math than Terry Tao, Ed Witten, Appel & Hakken
by Dan Christensen 11/10/16
9
Re: Lisa Thompson,Univ Toronto & Western Ontario, Alex Buchel,Jan Cami,Gordon F. West,Michael B. Walker, -- is the reason none of you have confirmed real proton = 840MeV, real electron is the muon and .5MeV was Dirac monopole, to busy on Dan
By Dan Christensen 1 post 3 views updated 1:12 PM
10
Re: 2Canada's sh)thead stalker Dan in sci.math 1 OR 3 = 4, does Justin Trudeau, Silvia Mittler, Els Peeters, is that what science is in Canada-- stalking bullies
by Dan Christensen 6/25/18
11
12
Re: envy hatred covered by AP's magazine journal for May//AP's periodic journal of fakeries in science: Magazine of science and math fakes foisted on general public Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author )
by Dan Christensen
14
Re: Rik Chandler,One pint short of an empty bladder // Harvard's Dr.Hau "slow light", and turning the laser off; I find very comprehensible
By Dan Christensen 19 posts 99 views updated Sep 9
15
Re: Rik Chandler,Useful as a chocolate teapot // Harvard's Dr.Hau "slow light", and turning the laser off; I find very comprehensible
By Dan Christensen 16 posts 101 views updated Sep 9
16
Re: Zurich's ETH Dr.Thomas Willwacher's stupid all his life in teaching Calculus, never a picture diagram of FTC// as evidence- Jan Burse
4 posts by 3 authors 
12/13/17
by Dan Christensen
17xxxxkicking the butt of insane Christensen
Re: 1.5- Dan Christensen, the insane Nazi Canadian bully stalker summed up in one beautiful paragraph
By Pete Smith 3 posts 19 views updated Sep 12
Re: 1.4- Dan Christensen, the insane Nazi Canadian bully stalker summed up in one beautiful paragraph
By Pete Smith 2 posts 9 views updated Sep 12
Martha Billes,Dan Ashlock, Jeremy Balka still teaching ellipse is a conic (see my proof below)? Is vvgra really trying to sell books or is he Dan Christensen trying to push people off the front page with daily spam?
by Roy Masters
Re: 1- Kibo Parry Moroney says of math failure Dan Christensen Univ. Western Ontario with his ellipse a conic when it never was//And his insane Boole logic of 10 OR 2 = 12// pandemic shit mule
by Hank Hill
Archimedes Plutonium
Apparently my 2nd textbook of Chemistry.
Archimedes Plutonium
Jul 2, 2023, 11:56:39 PM (2 days ago)
to
My 254th book of science// Are there 3 Tables for the Chemical Elements--Planar 10 by 10 square Periodic Table of Chemical Elements the last being Fermium-- character traits of this Table
Jun 25, 2023, 11:13:44 AM (3 days ago)
to
On Sunday, June 25, 2023 at 2:38:09 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.math :
> On Saturday, June 24, 2023 at 7:23:37 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
> >
> > > > 5s 5p 5d 5f 5g
> > > >
> > > > 4s 4p 4d 4f
> > > >
> > > > 3s 3p 3d
> > > >
> > > > 2s 2p
> > > >
> > > > 1s
In Chemistry for monopole Aufbau of S,P,D,F is based on 4, adding 4 to form the next orbital so that 2 in S goes to 6 in P and 6 in P goes to 10 in D, and 10 in D goes to 14 in F, etc.
Now why 4? That is because of geometry of parallel plate capacitor as the skin cover of proton toruses are neutrons.
The function of neutrons in Atom structure is to be a skin cover of the proton torus with muons inside doing the Faraday law. And the neutrons are parallel plate capacitor storing the electricity produced.
In Harold Jacobs Mathematics a Human Endeavor, page 290, Experiment. A Logarithmic Spiral in a "Rectangle of Whirling Squares" and the picture diagram on page 291, what we see is that pick any rectangle and it requires 4 new squares to cover any given rectangle inside.
So imagine any proton + muon torus as a rectangle, and how many new squares (squares as neutrons) to compose a skin cover is 4 new squares to cover that given proton+muon torus.
Within this diagram of pages 290 and 291 derives the numbers phi = 1.61... and e = 2.71.....
For 4 divided by square root of phi = 3.14....
And each arc inside a square in that diagram is a quarter circle. This, in turn relates to e =2.71... So here we have the three important numbers of phi, pi, and e and we should throw in the number 4, all four numbers related to one another in a geometry configuration.
Now we can relate a 10 by 10 square as the chemical elements from hydrogen to fermium whose last column of elements is 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100. Relate them as to the neutrons forming the skin cover of the underlying proton+muon torus inside.
Neon starts the column and is a inert gas, the only inert gas in the column, and it would be exciting to see where the other inert gases end up? Does each column have only one inert gas? No, I think the "6" column has both 36Kr and 86Rn. The element 118 Oganesson is hypothesized to be the inert gas after radon.
AP, King of Science
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jun 25, 2023, 1:05:41 PM (2 days ago)
to
Now deuterium with 1 neutron is actually stable, along with its most commonly found hydrogen. The element 1 in a 10 by 10 Grid is deuterium. And we see hydrogen abundance in nature as 99.9% a result of the Universe grows from Faraday law making new elements by muon thrusting through proton torus.
And element 100, Fermium in the 10 by 10 Grid is the last element that can form from Neutron Bombardment.
Smack in the middle is Tin at 50, the element with the largest number of stable isotopes -- 10 in all.
So this gives us the picture of how the 10 by 10 Table of Chemical Elements is formed-- by geometry of neutrons making the parallel plate capacitors of Elements as skin cover over the proton + muon toruses.
A torus is like a logarithmic spiral and you need 4 new squares to complete a full turn in the spiral.
Neodymium element 60 comprise the strongest permanent magnets Nd2Fe14B.
Ytterbium element 70 have gamma rays and as atomic clock.
Mercury 80 is a liquid at room temperature.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jun 25, 2023, 5:58:42 PM (2 days ago)
to
Elements in a 10 by 10 square Array with Deuterium as 1 and Tin as 50 and Fermium as 100. A column at the right is not the Inert Gases but rather instead is a reflection of neutrons as parallel plate capacitors as skin covering over the Faraday law proton+muon torus inside.
10 neon
20 calcium
30 zinc
40 zirconium
50 tin
60 neodymium
70 ytterbium
80 mercury
90 thorium
100 fermium
I am looking for some property of neutrons that is in common with that column.
As well as the column
9 fluorine
19 potassium
29
39
49
59
69
79
89
99
The regular chemistry table shows the column resemblance in the Proton+ Muon.
The 10 by 10 Table shows a neutron column resemblance.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jun 27, 2023, 12:13:29 PM (yesterday)
to
Good, this is slowly coming along. And thank goodness in year 2020 I bought a slew of Chemistry textbooks of High School and College. I do not remember this binge on chemistry, except vaguely I wanted to see what was taught chemistry in High School, having few High School Chemistry textbooks.
I open the first book that comes to hand-- Chemistry: Matter and Change, by authors Buthelezi, Dingrando, Hainen, Wistrom, Zike, 2008
I come to the page of physical constants and am wishing all future textbooks teach only the units of eV or MeV, the electron volt and ditch this Joule and other stuff. We must strive to have all of physics and chemistry be just one unit so that throughout physics and chemistry, we can easily have the mind relate all up and down the board in one unit. The Primal Axiom over all of Physical Science is -- All is Atom, and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. The Joule has gone out, a antique, just as "charge" has gone out as a antique. Why did you know, the concept of charge was invented during Ben Franklin in 1700s as that of horses-- charging, and we throw out obviously horse-power as a unit.
All of science should be in units of electron Volt so that we can cross reference immediately in all parts of science. We must train the young mind in science in electron volt. This is not only the best way to go in one units only, it makes chemistry education to students better. I cannot tell you how many times, I as student in High School and College-- there I was, doing something in Joules, doing another thing in Joules, another in BTU, another in kilowatt-hours another in calories, which is a nuisance, ... nuisance that impedes science learning and understanding. Do everything in one unit-- electron volt. And set up early on in first lessons, set up an experiment that grounds the High School student in what electron volt is. Even in biology, have in first lessons the idea of photonsynthesis by plants uses 1 or 2 eV of Visible Light to carry out photosynthesis. Teach the magnetic monopole is 0.5MeV while the proton is 840MeV rest mass, and neutron is 945MeV rest mass. Have the mind swimming in just one unit. So the mind can easily relate-- oh yes, photosynthesis is at 2eV and magnetic monopole (Old Chemistry's mistaken electron for the muon is the true electron of Atoms) are 0.5MeV.
We spend too much time in chemistry destroying the fun of science when we teach a logical-mess.
But the page I needed in this book was page 866 which shows what some have called the neutron to proton drip lines of n/p = 1 and n/p = 1.5.
In New Chemistry, Atoms are toruses, and they ___have no nucleus___. Atoms are toruses and the donut hole is empty, so there is no nucleus in atoms.
The subatomic particles throughout physics and chemistry have jobs to perform. The muon is the electron and is thrusting through the inside interior of a 840MeV proton torus in hydrogen. In deuterium which has 1 neutron that neutron forms a parallel plate capacitor with the proton+muon torus sandwiched in between the parallel plates. The single neutron of deuterium is split in half of its 940-945MeV rest mass and is a skin covering over the proton+muon torus. But skin cover is only one function of the neutron, and its more important function is that it collects and saves some of the electricity produced by the proton + muon torus doing the Faraday law. The sun and stars shine not from fusion, no, but rather the Sun and stars shine mostly-- over 90% does the Sun and stars shine from the Faraday law of the muon thrusting through the proton torus, and it is the neutrons that collect some or most of this electricity. This is why our Sun has gone Red Giant Phase and will kill all of life on Earth if we do not get to Europa and establish a permanent colony there. For NASA reported a 0.005% yearly increase in Solar Radiation from 2010 to 2020 and thereby the reason 25% of all insect biomass on Earth was killed during 2010 to 2020. Do not get me wrong, Global Warming is real in burning of fossil fuel, but the gargantuan killer of all of life on Earth is the Sun gone Red Giant Phase, and if we do not have a permanent colony on Europa in the next 1,000 years, then everything that was Earth, all its life, goes into extinction and oblivion.
So, looking on page 866, I see hydrogen and deuterium have a ratio of n/p = 1.
I look at the last element in AP's 10 by 10 Table of Elements as fermium at protons of 100, and if we calibrate each 10 increment as this sequence-- 1, 1.05, 1.1, 1.15, 1.2, 1.25, 1.3, 1.35, 1.4, 1.45, 1.5, 1.55.
So that from element 1 to 10 embodies n/p be 1 to 1.05, and elements 10 to 20 embodies 1.1, elements 20 to 30 embodies 1.15 and skipping to the last, elements 90 to 100 embody 1.5 to 1.55.
We can actually predict Fermium to be isotopes of 255.
Now this graph shown on page 866 is actually a curve following the e=2.71828... logarithmic spiral and 1.61.... phi of the golden mean ratio. This is what I mentioned earlier of the rectangle of whirling squares. You need 4 squares to enclose a rectangle inside. And, well pi is 4 divided by square-root of phi = 3.14....
What AP is doing with his 10 by 10 Table of Elements is making clear the Character Traits of the Elements as per Neutron count as the skin cover and capacitor of atoms.
In Old Chemistry, their table is valid as a table of the Characteristic Traits of the Elements as per Magnetic Monopole count of the elements.
Both are equally valid.
Chemistry, true chemistry needs to go forward with the recognition-- Atoms are toruses, and not the silly stupid model of nuclear center and tiny tiny electrons whizzing around outside doing nothing, all doing nothing with no job or function.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jun 27, 2023, 12:31:11 PM (yesterday)
to
On Tuesday, June 27, 2023 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
I look at the last element in AP's 10 by 10 Table of Elements as fermium at protons of 100, and if we calibrate each 10 increment as this sequence-- 1, 1.05, 1.1, 1.15, 1.2, 1.25, 1.3, 1.35, 1.4, 1.45, 1.5, 1.55.
So that from element 1 to 10 embodies n/p be 1 to 1.05, and elements 10 to 20 embodies 1.1, elements 20 to 30 embodies 1.15 and skipping to the last, elements 90 to 100 embody 1.5 to 1.55.
We can actually predict Fermium to be isotopes of 255.
Curiously, I wonder if element 110 is predictive as being 1.6 to 1.65 rendering the neutrons of Darmstadtium as being 160 to 165 neutrons. Turns out that Darmstadtium is 279Ds to 281Ds
However, if I again increase the rate-of-change of the function n/p to go in 0.2 increments.
1, 1.05, 1.1, 1.15, 1.2, 1.25, 1.3, 1.35, 1.4, 1.45, 1.5, 1.55, now go 0.2 increments 1.75, then 1.95.
Now 279Ds goes to 275Hs for 175 neutrons.
Checking out element 120, and it does not exist as yet. But we have Element 118, in Oganesson at 294 Og which turns into 290Lv.
I would say my 1.95 hits Oganesson as a good prediction.
AP, King of Science, especially physics and logic
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
2:51 AM (10 hours ago)
to
Alright, I am looking for phi = 1.6 in all of this, the golden ratio.
10 would be 16
20 would be 32
30 would be 48
40 would be 64
50 would be 80
60 would be 96
70 would be 112
80 would be 128
90 would be 144
100 would be 160
110 would be 176
Now in math geometry the rectangle in whirling squares is the Fibonacci sequence 1,1,2,3,5, 8, 13, 21,34, 55, ....
Now we derive the phi number in this sequence at its convergence 1/1 = 1, 2/1 = 2, 3/2 = 1.5, 5/3 = 1.66, 8/5 = 1.6, 13/8 = 1.62, 21/13 = 1.61, 34/21 = 1.61... and getting closer and closer the further out we go.
So looking at elements above in that list. Do I recognize any pattern?
Why yes. For pi is 4 divided by sqrt(1.618..)
But instead of square root the above has a square pattern
16 is 4^2
32 is close to 6^2
48 is close to 7^2
64= 8^2
80 is close to 9^2
96 is close to 10^2
112 breaks apart
But if we add these two then divide by 2 is 120 is close to 11^2
128 breaks apart
144 is 12^2
160 breaks apart
But if we add these two then divide by 2 is 168 is close to 169
176 breaks apart
Key to this theory of neutron table is the fact that Fermium is the last element to be built by bombarding it with neutrons.
So in that sense we have to think of the other elements built by bombarding them with neutrons.
AP is building the Neutron Table of Elements, all because Atoms have no nucleus. Atoms are toruses and the neutrons form Parallel Plate Capacitors as storage for the electricity that the proton+muon in Faraday law produce. Picture the proton+muon as a sausage torus and the neutron as two slices of bread (parallel plate capacitor).
Now the feature characteristic traits of these elements 10, 20, 30, ... 90,100 is not yet known by me. All the even numbers are in a column and all the odds are in a column.
AP
AP's 254th book of science// Planar 10 by 10 square Periodic Table of Chemical Elements the last being Fermium-- character traits of this Table
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jun 28, 2023, 2:21:35 PM (yesterday)
to
Fermium has 20 isotopes and 260Fm is the last one listed. But I am sure it has 261Fm where 161 neutrons is the phi number 1.61.....
There likely is no column character traits as these elements in a column of 10 by 10 are so diverse. The 10 by 10 is about the neutrons as capacitors of parallel plate as a skin covering over the proton+ muon torus inside the parallel plate of neutrons.
The regular normal table of chemical elements is a circular table as seen in Van Nostrand encyclopedia, the reason the table has a cut away of the F orbitals is that it is meant to be a circular table. The AP table of neutrons is a flat table, a 10 by 10 and it is based on neutrons forming this parallel plate over the enclosed torus of protons.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jun 29, 2023, 2:57:15 AM (yesterday)
to
Alright, the light bulb of inspiration is slowly coming on here, for the characteristic traits of columns. Just as in Old Physics, their Table has similar traits for each column.
The characteristic trait of neutrons as a Table is the overwhelming fact of neutrons as parallel plate capacitors as skin covering is the reason for the predominant number of elements to be Metallic. I forgotten the percentage of elements that are metals-- 78.5% ???
In New Chemistry, atoms have no nucleus but they have a Proton torus with Muon electron inside doing the Faraday law and producing electricity such as the 0.5MeV particle that is a Dirac Magnetic Monopole. The Old Chemistry table is about the 0.5MeV particle causing characteristic traits in columns. And that is possible because the neutrons as parallel plates-- the skin of atoms storage electricity but also has magnetic monopoles roaming around on these parallel plates and causing them to be Metallic in appearance and causing the Metallic bond.
Now of course, hydrogen has no neutron, but if we go to deuterium and tritium we again have neutrons as skin cover and thus metallic in appearance and in bonding.
So, well, let me research deuterium and tritium and all the Noble gases, even helium and see if I can pull up a experimental observation that all elements with neutrons have a Metallic appearance and a Metallic bond, although weak in helium.
So this is the Character trait in columns of the AP Chemical Table of 10 by 10 square.
And the reason that Fermium is a 1.61 slope line while hydrogen and out to carbon are a 1.0 slope line is because the neutrons as parallel plate capacitors is governed by 4 whirling squares to make a full turn of the proton torus that is covered by the neutrons.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jun 29, 2023, 12:07:49 PM (22 hours ago)
to
AP's proof that Neutrons are skin cover of atoms and that they are the capacitors forming parallel plates over the Proton+Muon torus that resides between the parallel plates formed by neutrons. Atoms have no nucleus, for Atoms are toruses covered by neutrons as parallel plate capacitors.
--- quoting Wikipedia ---
Experiments on fluid deuterium at the National Ignition Facility, 2018[edit]
In August 2018, scientists announced new observations[51] regarding the rapid transformation of fluid deuterium from an insulating to a metallic form below 2000 K. Remarkable agreement is found between the experimental data and the predictions based on Quantum Monte Carlo simulations, which is expected to be the most accurate method to date. This may help researchers better understand giant gas planets, such as Jupiter, Saturn and related exoplanets, since such planets are thought to contain a lot of liquid metallic hydrogen, which may be responsible for their observed powerful magnetic fields.
--- end quote ---
AP, King of Science, especially Physics & Logic
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jun 29, 2023, 12:22:31 PM (21 hours ago)
to
Now in the AP theory, we should easily have metallic helium with its 2 neutrons, but no metallic hydrogen because no neutrons are available. We should have metallic deuterium and metallic tritium especially, and especially metallic helium.
So why would we have reports of metallic hydrogen that has only a proton+muon but no skin cover of a neutron as parallel-plates??? Perhaps the high pressure converts some of the proton+muon into becoming a neutron parallel plate capacitor.
Research on helium metal is rare.
--- quoting PNAS ---
In this issue of PNAS, Stixrude and Jeanloz (4) show that band closure in pure helium occurs at lower pressures than previously thought, provided the effect of high temperatures is taken into account. This suggests that helium behaves as a metal, at least at the highest pressures encountered in Jupiter and perhaps over a wider range of pressures in the many, often much hotter, planets of Jupiter's mass and larger that are now evidently common in the universe (5). The full thermodynamic and transport properties of the relevant mixtures cannot be deduced from the behavior of the end members (pure hydrogen and pure helium) and are therefore an area of ongoing research.
--- end quoting PNAS ---
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jun 29, 2023, 12:48:48 PM (21 hours ago)
to
--- quoting from ScienceDirect, Solid Helium, Optical And Magneto-Optical Spectroscopy Of Point Defects In Condensed Helium, Serguei I. Kanorsky, Antoine Weis, 1998 ---
2 Solid Matrices
Experiments in the 1960s had revealed that the mobility of electrons in solid He matrices was about 5 orders of magnitude lower than in the heavier solid noble gas matrices (Ne, Kr, Xe) and that the mobility in He had a positive temperature coefficient in contrast to other solid noble gases, where it was negative. Furthermore the observations of Shalnikov (1965) had evidenced a strong similarity of the motion of electrons in liquid and in solid He. These observations led Cohen and Jortner (1969) to propose that excess electrons in solid helium also form stable localized states for which structural changes of the local environment are energetically favored, thus leading to the formation of a cavity, in analogy to the electron bubble observed in liquid helium. This localized trapping site for excess electrons in a solid is quite unique, as electrons in solids are usually delocalized as quasi-free charges in band structures. Cohen and Jortner (1969) estimated a bubble radius of 9 Å, an optical transition energy of 0.5 eV (at 30 bar), and a stability of the bubble for pressures up to 4000 bar.
These theoretical considerations were first unambiguously confirmed in experiments by Golov and Mezhov-Deglin, who extended the optical absorption experiments on the 1 s–1p transition in electron bubbles in liquid 4He to hexagonal close-packed (h.c.p.) solid 4He (Golov and Mezhov-Deglin, 1992) and to body-centered cubic (b.c.c.) solid 3He (Golov and Mezhov-Deglin, 1992, 1994) matrices.
--- end quoting ---
Reading this article and others, I am pretty sure that what is happening to pure hydrogen, the hydrogen with no neutrons, is the high pressure is converting some of the hydrogen proton+muon into becoming neutrons. Neutrons as parallel plate capacitors.
But then pure deuterium and especially tritium should be easily seen and observed as Metallic for they already have a neutron skin cover as parallel plates.
Tritium is much like helium with its existing 2 neutrons. So the experiments should show that tritium is so similar to helium that it is difficult to tell them apart with respect to being a metal.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jun 29, 2023, 5:25:46 PM (16 hours ago)
to
Alright, this research is going fantastic, in speed and in importance.
So my last column in the AP 10 by 10 Table is this.
10 neon
20 calcium
30 zinc
40 zirconium
50 tin
60 neodymium
70 ytterbium
80 mercury
90 thorium
100 fermium
And the Characteristic Trait of elements in the same column is the configuration of the Neutrons as Parallel Plates that forms the skin covering of the Proton torus between the parallel plates.
That means all elements are Metallic, at a given temperature. Metallic because the neutrons are parallel plates. Old Chemistry was never able to explain why elements are metallic. They covered their absence of explanation by just assuming the Metallic Bond.
So, the proof that all atoms are metals at a certain temperature is that even hydrogen and helium are metals, proving atoms have No Nucleus. The neutrons are on the outside of Atoms as parallel plate capacitors. The neutrons storage the electricity produced by the proton+muon toruses.
So, what characteristic trait does the above column show??? The answer is that the shiny metal all of them are in the same column are similar in color. The shine of mercury metal is almost the same as tin metal, almost the same as thorium shiny metal, almost the same as zirconium, zinc, calcium.
AP, King of Science
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jun 29, 2023, 5:40:57 PM (16 hours ago)
to
The column that contains silver-- the most shiny reflective metal is this.
7 Nitrogen
17 Chlorine
27 Cobalt
37 Rubidium
47 Silver
57 Lanthanum
67 Holmium
77 Iridium
87 Francium
97 Berkelium
Can we say that all the elements in this column are more shiny bright than other columns???
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jun 29, 2023, 11:03:31 PM (11 hours ago)
to
The column that contains gold a yellow metal, I am very curious to see if any of the other elements in that column contain a metal that is not white shiny metal. I will be using the book "The Elements: A Visual Exploration of Every Known Atom in the Universe" by Theodore Gray, 2009.
9 Fluorine
19 Potassium
29 Copper
39 Yttrium
49 Indium
59 Praseodymium
69 Thulium
79 Gold
89 Actinium
99 Es
Well, both copper and gold are colors other than white. And Fluorine is yellow in liquid. Actinium glows blue with a yellow cast.
Now I do realize the Old Chemistry Table also has copper and gold in the same column as the characteristic traits of magnetic monopoles. And here the magnetic monopoles are being storaged in neutrons as parallel plate capacitors.
AP did another revision of the Chemical table based on the number 6 for the Lewis Structure bonding is based on 6 and not 8. In that table it is geometry of bonding, for a cube or rectangular box has 6 faces, each face could have a bond.
So, apparently, the world has now, 3 Chemical tables.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
2:50 AM (7 hours ago)
to
Let me do the lead column for lead is a dull appearance gray and not shiny metal. And see if the other members are dull and gray in appearance. Keep in mind the AP 10 by 10 is based on the idea that neutrons are skin cover for Atoms and their appearances are because neutrons form parallel plate capacitors and is the reason all Atoms are metals, some need cold near 0 Kelvin temperature.
2 helium
12 magnesium
22 titanium
32 germanium
42 molybdenum
52 tellurium
62 samarium
72 hafnium
82 lead
92 uranium
I found molybdenum, tellurium, hafnium, uranium to be gray like that of lead.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jun 30, 2023, 10:31:43 AM (2 days ago)
Let me do the column with iron and carbon. Sulfur is also in this column and at either very low
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
3:32 AM (20 hours ago)
Alright, I needed a pause from this, but right back at it. So I wrote a book not too long ago,
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
1:26 PM (10 hours ago)
I need to come to some sort of meeting of the mind, for this will be my second new Periodic Table of
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
1:40 PM (10 hours ago)
to
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 3:33:10 AM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Alright, I needed a pause from this, but right back at it.
So I wrote a book not too long ago, arguing that since Lewis structure is based on 6, not the erroneous 8, means that we can construct the Periodic table based on 6 in a row elements and then 17 rows of 6 elements.
Now I am working on a table of elements based on neutrons being the skin and capacitors of atoms as parallel plates.
This entails a possible 6 faces for maximum bonding.
Now Carbon would have a maximum of 4 hydrogen bonds.
But can Boron have 6 hydrogen bonds, considering a Cube has 6 faces one face for a hydrogen to bond to that face.
So I look up boron and find "diborane" which is B2H6.
Can I get rid of that one boron and have BH6.
Then consider the D and F orbitals, can we have say ScH6, or LaH6 or AcH6.
I am looking for 6 hydrogen atoms bonded to a single chemical element since a cube has 6 faces.
Now maybe this idea that the parallel plate capacitors form the skin covering with the proton+muon torus sandwiched in between, gives the idea, like a two bread sandwich with a hotdog in a torus shape, the idea that only 2 faces are exposed in parallel plates.
But perhaps the ends are also having parallel plates would make 4 faces, and thus we have CH4.
Do we have BH5??????
Looking and there is PCl5.
Apparently there is Sulfur with 6 hydrogen bonds hydrogen sulfide H6S, sulfur hexahydride.
And there is Cl6S, Sulfur hexacloride.
There exists _no atoms_ with 7 bonds, and this is because a rectangular box or cube have only 6 faces.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
2:22 PM (10 hours ago)
to
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 1:40:19 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
> Apparently there is Sulfur with 6 hydrogen bonds hydrogen sulfide H6S, sulfur hexahydride.
> And there is Cl6S, Sulfur hexacloride.
>
> There exists _no atoms_ with 7 bonds, and this is because a rectangular box or cube have only 6 faces.
Well, that is shot to pieces, there is Iodine Heptafluoride.
> Now do the D or F orbitals have 6 hydrogen bonds possible. You see, I am trying to picture the 6 faces of a cube or rectangular box and the Parallel Plates as the faces.
>
Let me see if perhaps that is a mistaken identity molecule. What I mean is that the 7th bonded fluorine atom is not actually bonded as the other 6 fluorine atoms. A sort of tag a long and not actual chemical bond.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
6:10 PM (6 hours ago)
to
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 2:22:21 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 1:40:19 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
> >
> > Apparently there is Sulfur with 6 hydrogen bonds hydrogen sulfide H6S, sulfur hexahydride.
> > And there is Cl6S, Sulfur hexacloride.
> >
> > There exists _no atoms_ with 7 bonds, and this is because a rectangular box or cube have only 6 faces.
Yes, AP is correct, for there exists ___no atoms___ that can support 7 bonds, and this is because a rectangular box or cube have only 6 faces for one plate of parallel plates of one atom to attach to a plate of a second atom.
In the stick and ball representation of Cl6S or F6S or Iodine 6F those are true existing one plate attaches to another plate and only 6 in total.
But in the Supposed Iodine Heptafluoride, it is one plate of one Fluoride attaching to a plate of one of the 6 other fluoride and not to iodine itself, which allows only 6 at maximum.
> Let me see if perhaps that is a mistaken identity molecule. What I mean is that the 7th bonded fluorine atom is not actually bonded as the other 6 fluorine atoms. A sort of tag a long and not actual chemical bond.
This idea is further supported in H3O where a hydrogen atom attaches to another hydrogen atom of H2O, not to the O atom.
--- quoting Wikipedia ---
In chemistry, hydronium (hydroxonium in traditional British English) is the common name for the aqueous cation H3O+, the type of oxonium ion produced by protonation of water. It is often viewed as the positive ion present when an Arrhenius acid is dissolved in water, as Arrhenius acid molecules in solution give up a proton (a positive hydrogen ion, H+) to the surrounding water molecules (H2O). In fact, acids must be surrounded by more than a single water molecule in order to ionize, yielding aqueous H+ and conjugate base. Three main structures for the aqueous proton have garnered experimental support: The Eigen cation, which is a tetrahydrate, H3O+(H2O)3; the Zundel cation, which is a symmetric dihydrate, H+(H2O)2; and the Stoyanov cation, an expanded Zundel cation, which is a hexahydrate: H+(H2O)2(H2O)4. Spectroscopic evidence from well-defined IR spectra overwhelmingly supports the Stoyanov cation as the predominant form. For this reason, it has been suggested that wherever possible, the symbol H+(aq) should be used instead of the hydronium ion.
--- end quoting Wikipedia ---
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
6:24 PM (5 hours ago)
to
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 2:22:21 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 1:40:19 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
> >
> > Apparently there is Sulfur with 6 hydrogen bonds hydrogen sulfide H6S, sulfur hexahydride.
> > And there is Cl6S, Sulfur hexacloride.
> >
> > There exists _no atoms_ with 7 bonds, and this is because a rectangular box or cube have only 6 faces.
Yes, AP is correct, for there exists ___no atoms___ that can support 7 bonds, and this is because a rectangular box or cube have only 6 faces for one plate of parallel plates of one atom to attach to a plate of a second atom.
In the stick and ball representation of Cl6S or F6S or Iodine 6F those are true existing one plate attaches to another plate and only 6 in total.
But in the Supposed Iodine Heptafluoride, it is one plate of one Fluoride attaching to a plate of one of the 6 other fluoride and not to iodine itself, which allows only 6 at maximum.
This also reminds me of the conceptual correction needed to be made on how we teach bonding. For in the stick and ball teaching, we often categorize Carbon as a long chain of stick and ball bonding
C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C with no end in sight and call it a C50 molecule. But atoms can only at maximum have 6 bonds to one atom itself such as F6S and to think you can have C49C is a intellectual mistake. This is ample room for mind bent errors to creep into Chemistry.
And I point this out for I do need a Table of Elements based on 6, the maximum number of plates for a given atom to bond with other atoms, along with Lewis Structure is based on 6, not on 8. And the rows of 6 with 17 rows in total to element 102 is a justification for having this table.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jul 3, 2023, 12:21:29 AM (2 days ago)
to
So here is where Old Chemistry needs to clean up its act. The difference between "stick and ball" representation and writing the formula of the compound and that of "chain bonding". For there is awful confusion in this that has lead to absurd bonding of Iodine Heptafluoride.
There is no stick and ball F7Iodine. What is happening here is one of the Fluorine atoms is bonding with another fluorine atom, not with the Iodine central atom.
And the chemistry literature needs to clarify this. Such as also C6 or C7 or C8, for that is confusing to students who may think you have a central C atom and as stick and ball you have 6 or 7 carbons bonded to the central C atom. Such confusion in Old Chemistry has lead to the disaster of thinking there is a Iodine central atom with 7 fluorine atoms bonded to the central Iodine atom.
Now I am still, not fully confident that Chemistry has 3 Tables for the Elements, one table for proton+muon and one table for magnetic monopoles and one table for the parallel plate capacitors.
It may come down to being just two tables. And if it does, then I need to chose between the 6 by 17 table or the 10 by 10 table.
It maybe the case that I need a 4 by 25 table, for the logical reason that the logarithmic spiral, much like a torus, is a Rectangle in whirling squares, and it take 4 squares to make a 360 degree revolution.
But it is plenty of time for me to mull these questions for at the moment I am on book 246 until I get to book 254.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jul 3, 2023, 1:22:20 AM (2 days ago)
to
I think I am going to have to decide on the Table which represents the Torus of Protons+Muons. I suspect the Old Chemistry Table represents the Neutrons capacitor and Parallel Plate and the Magnetic Monopoles for most of the elements are metals which would come from parallel plates and the magnetic monopoles. Of course near zero Kelvin all the elements are metals and being metal is the parallel plate capacitor that neutrons are. Now hydrogen without a neutron when pressured and squeezed together some of those proton+muon transform into deuterium, some even into tritium which Jupiter does such a transformation. But even helium at near 0 Kelvin is a metal.
I suspect it is this 4 by 25 Table that is the representative table for the Proton + Muon, because of ties to mathematics log spiral. It takes 4 squares in a rectangle of whirling squares to make a 360 degree rotation.
And we also see this in the idea that S goes into P by adding 4, and P goes into D by adding 4 and D goes into F by adding 4.
1......2......3......4
5......6......7......8
9......10....11....12
13...14....15.....16
17....18....19.....20
21.....22....23....24
25.....26....27.....28
29.....30.....31....32
33.....34.....35....36
37.....38.....39.....40
41.....42.....43.....44
45.....46.....47.....48
49.....50.....51.....52
53.....54.....55.....56
57.....58.....59.....60
61.....62.....63.....64
65.....66.....67.....68
69.....70.....71.....72
73.....74.....75.....76
77.....78.....79.....80
81.....82.....83.....84
85.....86.....87.....88
89.....90.....91.....92
93.....94.....95.....96
97.....98.....99....100
Again the 4 by 25 Array with chemical name.
H, He, Li, Be
B, C, N, O
F, Ne, Na, Mg
Al, Si, P, S
Cl, Ar, K, Ca
Sc, Ti, V, Cr
Mn, Fe, Co, Ni
Cu, Zn, Ga, Ge
As, Se, Br, Kr
Rb, Sr, Y, Zr
Nb, Mo, Tc, Ru
Rh, Pd, Ag, Cd
In, Sn, Sb, Te
I , Xe, Cs, Ba
La, Ce, Pr, Nd
Pm, Sm, Eu, Gd
Tb, Dy, Ho, Er
Tm, Yb, Lu, Hf
Ta, W, Re, Os
Ir, Pt Au, Hg
Tl, Pb, Bi, Po
At, Rn, Fr, Ra
Ac, Th Pa, U
Np, Pu, Am, Cm
Bk, Cf, 99, 100
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jul 3, 2023, 2:50:12 AM (2 days ago)
to
So, the state of the art for me on Proton Torus is of two types, and it is possible that this 4 square is a 360 degree revolution in rectangle of whirling squares, that may decide between these two types, which is correct.
Using carbon as the element.
The first type, is that every Element has a Mainframe Torus. So let me just pick the Carbon Atom. Its mainframe torus is 2 protons of the 2P orbital which is 2 x 840 windings as the big torus. Inside this mainframe torus of 2x840 windings reside 2 muons and a 1S torus with 2 muons inside, and a 2S torus with 2 muons inside.
So going around in circles inside the Mainframe torus of carbon are 2 muons and 1S torus and 2S torus, all doing the Faraday law for maximum electricity production. Outside the Mainframe torus are 6 neutrons in the form of parallel plate capacitors, collecting the electricity produced by the Mainframe torus.
The second type is far easier, for each proton in the next element is added to one torus alone. No nested toruses inside. So for Carbon I have 1 proton torus of 6x 840 windings and inside the one single torus are 6 muons thrusting through the proton torus in a Faraday law and producing electricity. Outside the torus are the 6 neutrons as parallel plate capacitors storaging the electricity.
So the rectangle of whirling squares that is the logarithmic spiral is based on 4 squares is a full revolution. Does that idea apply to these two types of torus design, the nested or all one torus?
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jul 3, 2023, 12:39:49 PM (yesterday)
to
AP is trying to figure out the second table of the Chemical Elements. The first table is very useful as it determines the Neutron and Dirac Magnetic Monopole structure of each and every atom.
But a second table is needed to tell us of the formation and structure of the Proton torus with Muons inside thrusting around inside to produce magnetic monopoles via the Faraday law.
The second table is a logarithmic spiral of the protons as they are built of a coil windings. There are 840 windings per proton.
The Fibonacci Sequence starts with 1,1. And the way it works is you add the last two to obtain the next number. So 1+1 = 2, and so the first three numbers of the sequence are 1,1,2 and now the next is 1+2 = 3 and so the sequence takes shape as 1,1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, .....
Now the beauty of this sequence as I said in my books is that it is geometry in motion. The sequence is calculus. For if we make each number number a square we have a motion of moving around in a logarithmic spiral. We have Four of the most important numbers from this geometry in motion structure, for we have phi the golden mean number = 1.61.... and we have 4 as 4 squares to make a complete full revolution. This is seen in Harold Jacobs book Mathematics A Human Endeavor, 1970, page 290-291 "A Logarithmic Spiral in a "Rectangle of Whirling Squares"".
The square root of 1.618... is 1.272... and when divided into 4 is pi = 3.14.... The number e = 2.71... the equiangular log spiral number is from the sequence 1 + (1/1) + 1/(1*2) + 1/(1*2*3) + . . . The number e is the number that its angle is always equal in a spiral, equal angle of a radius out to the spiral and a tangent line at that point of intersection.
Now once we get to 5/3 in the Fibonacci we start getting the 1.6..... convergence and it sharpens more as we get into larger numbers of the sequence. For our purpose we stop at 89 with 89/55 = 1.618.
And the sequence can be multiplied by a constant.
2,2,4,6,10,16,26,42,68,110
or
3,3,6,9,15,24,39, 63, 102
And substituting chemical elements by proton number we have.
helium, helium, beryllium, carbon, neon, sulfur, iron, molybdenum, erbium, 110
Now, putting the elements in such a sequence, can it tell us whether the protons are arranged as nested toruses or as a single one torus? Probably not, but perhaps, what the sequence can tell us is how many neutrons each specific chemical element should converge upon.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jul 3, 2023, 1:27:17 PM (yesterday)
to
Thinking more and more on the question of Maximum Electricity from torus design, and whether Elements are nested toruses or whether they are one single torus, I am coming to the educated guess that they are single torus.
And it is this Fibonacci sequence in Rectangle of Whirling Squares that is guiding me.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jul 4, 2023, 3:29:56 AM (yesterday)
to
Alright, today I have some excellent news of progress. I was stuck with three different arrays the 6 by 17, and the 10 by 10 and then a day ago the 4 by 25 of the chemical elements, each to represent the Proton+ Muon as a Chemical Table. Only one was logically sound-- the 4 by 25 in that it takes 4 Squares in a Rectangle of Whirling Squares to make a full 360 degree revolution. And that is of course the Logarithmic Spiral.
So, being stymied as to which of these is the representation of Proton and Muon and it is a logarithmic spiral. I took the next leap. That there exists Logarithmic Spiral Toruses.
We can take a sphere surface and run log spiral tubing on on the sphere surface starting at one pole and then entering the other pole and the tubing going through to the opposite pole.
I did not think anyone has drawn such a 3D figure and so took a search. And lo and behold Springer-Link has a close enough figure to what I imagined.
--- quoting Springer Link ---
Encyclopedia of Analytical Surfaces Chapter
Spiral-Shaped Surfaces
S. N. Krivoshapko & V. N. Ivanov
Chapter
First Online: 01 January 2015
1877 Accesses
Abstract
Spiral-shaped surfaces bear a resemblance to spiral surfaces but these surfaces cannot be related to the same class because the spiral surface has the directrix curve only in the form of a spiral on a right circular cone and the generatrix curve doesn’t change its form in the process of the motion along the conical spiral directrix line. But for a directrix curve of any spiral-shaped surface, one may take arbitrary spiral curve laying on any surface.
--- end quote ---
I am going to call it the AP Log Spiral Torus.
And what I am going to do is see if the Chemical Elements, every row of 4 elements makes a Log Spiral Torus. Elements in the Beryllium column are complete Log Spiral Toruses, much like the Noble gases as complete P orbitals. Elements not in the last column are more circular toruses and need the additional protons to make a Log Spiral Torus.
So a circular torus is where the muons thrust through the circle walls of the torus and not a donut hole thrusting through.
In a completed Log Spiral Torus, the muons thrusting through the walls also thrust through what we call the donut hole.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jul 4, 2023, 3:54:27 AM (yesterday)
to
Alright, today I have some excellent news of progress. I was stuck with three different arrays the 6 by 17, and the 10 by 10 and then a day ago the 4 by 25 of the chemical elements, each to represent the Proton+ Muon as a Chemical Table. Only one was logically sound-- the 4 by 25 in that it takes 4 Squares in a Rectangle of Whirling Squares to make a full 360 degree revolution. And that is of course the Logarithmic Spiral.
So, being stymied as to which of these is the representation of Proton and Muon and it is a logarithmic spiral. I took the next leap. That there exists Logarithmic Spiral Toruses.
We can take a sphere surface and run log spiral tubing on onto the sphere surface starting at one pole and then entering the other pole and the tubing going through to the opposite pole.
And such a 3D geometry, I conjecture is maximum electricity. In a normal torus, the donut hole is a wasted space, especially considering that the diameter of the donut hole has to be a large diameter in relation to the diameter of the torus tube itself. So that if we can utilize the donut hole itself, and thrust muons into the donut hole in addition to the outer log spiral coils, we produce more electricity. Of course here on Earth we could not engineer such a device and force the magnets as muons to thrust through. No, only the Almight Atom with its perpetual motion of muons can utilize such a geometry.
I did not think anyone has drawn such a 3D figure and so took a search. And lo and behold Springer-Link has a close enough figure to what I imagined.
--- quoting Springer Link ---
Encyclopedia of Analytical Surfaces Chapter
Spiral-Shaped Surfaces
S. N. Krivoshapko & V. N. Ivanov
Chapter
First Online: 01 January 2015
1877 Accesses
Abstract
Spiral-shaped surfaces bear a resemblance to spiral surfaces but these surfaces cannot be related to the same class because the spiral surface has the directrix curve only in the form of a spiral on a right circular cone and the generatrix curve doesn’t change its form in the process of the motion along the conical spiral directrix line. But for a directrix curve of any spiral-shaped surface, one may take arbitrary spiral curve laying on any surface.
--- end quote ---
I am going to call it the AP Log Spiral Torus.
And what I am going to do is see if the Chemical Elements, every row of 4 elements makes a Log Spiral Torus. Elements in the Beryllium column are complete Log Spiral Toruses, much like the Noble gases as complete P orbitals. Elements not in the last column are more circular toruses and need the additional protons before they can make a Log Spiral Torus.
So a circular torus is where the muons thrust through the circle walls of the torus and not a donut hole thrusting through.
In a completed Log Spiral Torus, the muons thrusting through the walls also thrust through what we call the donut hole.
Now here is that 4 by 25 Table of Chemical Elements once again. And can we envision the outer column as being somewhat like the Inert Noble Gas Column of the standard Periodic Table??
Apparently the most reactive even elements such as Oxygen are in that last column. The element 100, Fermium is the last element that can be constructed by neutron bombardment. Perfect for being the last element in the most reactive column.
Column of Hydrogen and column of Helium and column of Lithium are toruses of circular geometry, only the last column is the Proton+Muon torus a completed Logarithmic Spiral Torus.
Yes, this is likely the true second table of Chemical Elements. Leaving the world of chemistry science with Two Tables in all. One table for neutron parallel plate capacitors and one table for Proton+ Muon doing Faraday Law. This would also end my questioning of whether we have nested toruses inside of Mainframe torus-- and the answer is no. We have protons adding on to existing One Single Torus.
AP, King of Science, especially Physics & Logic
Excellent day worth of work!!! Excellent!!!!
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jul 4, 2023, 2:26:40 PM (22 hours ago)
to
On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 3:54:27 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Alright, today I have some excellent news of progress. I was stuck with three different arrays the 6 by 17, and the 10 by 10 and then a day ago the 4 by 25 of the chemical elements, each to represent the Proton+ Muon as a Chemical Table. Only one was logically sound-- the 4 by 25 in that it takes 4 Squares in a Rectangle of Whirling Squares to make a full 360 degree revolution. And that is of course the Logarithmic Spiral.
>
> So, being stymied as to which of these is the representation of Proton and Muon and it is a logarithmic spiral. I took the next leap. That there exists Logarithmic Spiral Toruses.
> We can take a sphere surface and run log spiral tubing on onto the sphere surface starting at one pole and then entering the other pole and the tubing going through to the opposite pole.
>
> And such a 3D geometry, I conjecture is maximum electricity. In a normal torus, the donut hole is a wasted space, especially considering that the diameter of the donut hole has to be a large diameter in relation to the diameter of the torus tube itself. So that if we can utilize the donut hole itself, and thrust muons into the donut hole in addition to the outer log spiral coils, we produce more electricity. Of course here on Earth we could not engineer such a device and force the magnets as muons to thrust through. No, only the Almight Atom with its perpetual motion of muons can utilize such a geometry.
> I did not think anyone has drawn such a 3D figure and so took a search. And lo and behold Springer-Link has a close enough figure to what I imagined.
>
> --- quoting Springer Link ---
> Encyclopedia of Analytical Surfaces Chapter
> Spiral-Shaped Surfaces
>
> S. N. Krivoshapko & V. N. Ivanov
> Chapter
> First Online: 01 January 2015
> 1877 Accesses
> Abstract
> Spiral-shaped surfaces bear a resemblance to spiral surfaces but these surfaces cannot be related to the same class because the spiral surface has the directrix curve only in the form of a spiral on a right circular cone and the generatrix curve doesn’t change its form in the process of the motion along the conical spiral directrix line. But for a directrix curve of any spiral-shaped surface, one may take arbitrary spiral curve laying on any surface.
> --- end quote ---
>
> I am going to call it the AP Log Spiral Torus.
> And what I am going to do is see if the Chemical Elements, every row of 4 elements makes a Log Spiral Torus. Elements in the Beryllium column are complete Log Spiral Toruses, much like the Noble gases as complete P orbitals. Elements not in the last column are more circular toruses and need the additional protons before they can make a Log Spiral Torus.
> So a circular torus is where the muons thrust through the circle walls of the torus and not a donut hole thrusting through.
>
> In a completed Log Spiral Torus, the muons thrusting through the walls also thrust through what we call the donut hole.
> Now here is that 4 by 25 Table of Chemical Elements once again. And can we envision the outer column as being somewhat like the Inert Noble Gas Column of the standard Periodic Table??
I am guessing that to prove this table below needs a whole new physics and chemistry experimentation. That of Neutron Bombardment.
We start with hydrogen and bombard it with neutrons to build deuterium, tritium and then helium. Then bombard helium to make lithium, then lithium bombarded to make beryllium. So on. In New Chemistry, the proton+muon torus is now seen as the nuclear region of Atoms, and outside the proton+muon is the neutrons as skin cover parallel plate capacitors.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jul 4, 2023, 8:06:50 PM (16 hours ago)
to
Now I am going into one of the most famous experiments in physics history, if we mean top 100 experiments of physics. When in 1932, Chadwick bombarded Beryllium with alpha particles of the radioactive decay of polonium. The outcome was the discovery of the neutron penetrating lead shield.
In my 4 by 25 Table of Elements, beryllium sits in the last of the first row, much like helium or neon as Noble Gases.
What I want to see is Beryllium bombarded by neutrons to produce Boron. And then, I want to see Lithium bombarded by neutrons to produce Beryllium.
In fact, I want a wholescale research on producing every element beyond hydrogen, even deuterium and tritium via one method-- neutron bombardment.
We know that Fermium, #100 is the last and final element produced by neutron bombardment. I want to see the science of all the other elements produced by neutron bombardment.
I sense that this column headed by beryllium then oxygen then magnesium are different geometry shaped toruses than the column headed by hydrogen, by helium and by lithium.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jul 4, 2023, 9:01:51 PM (16 hours ago)
to
On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 3:54:27 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
> --- quoting Springer Link ---
> Encyclopedia of Analytical Surfaces Chapter
> Spiral-Shaped Surfaces
>
> S. N. Krivoshapko & V. N. Ivanov
> Chapter
> First Online: 01 January 2015
> 1877 Accesses
> Abstract
> Spiral-shaped surfaces bear a resemblance to spiral surfaces but these surfaces cannot be related to the same class because the spiral surface has the directrix curve only in the form of a spiral on a right circular cone and the generatrix curve doesn’t change its form in the process of the motion along the conical spiral directrix line. But for a directrix curve of any spiral-shaped surface, one may take arbitrary spiral curve laying on any surface.
> --- end quote ---
Alright in those pictures of spiral toruses I am looking at this one in particular.
Spiral-Shaped Surfaces
SpringerLink
The tubular surface on the sphere
But on the Internet, there is another picture closer to what I mean when I say Logarithmic Spiral Torus.
Towards Life-Knowledge
Toroidal Geometry
Dirk K. F. Meijer
The standard regular torus in 3D is a donut with donut hole.
The Log-Spiral-Torus is where the donut hole is used for the thrusting muons through 840 windings per each proton.
It is this Log-Spiral-Torus that I believe the proton structure of Beryllium of Oxygen of Magnesium of Sulfur, etc consist of. The other three columns of proton structure such as the hydrogen column the helium column and the lithium column are regular torus structure.
That of course is a conjecture by me. But the way to find out if I am correct or wrong is via Neutron Bombardment of all the elements from hydrogen up to fermium.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jul 4, 2023, 11:54:33 PM (13 hours ago)
to
Alright, here I have to stop and revise the entire Old Chemistry theory of bonding.
In New Chemistry the bonding is done by the neutrons as parallel plate capacitors with Dirac magnetic monopoles flowing on some plates. So in a car lead acid battery, are a series of plates, and we see bonding of Chemistry as a series of plates.
Old Chemistry had a tough time distinguishing ionic from covalent. Had a tough time of even explaining what the metallic bond was with their silly idea of free electrons. Then Old Chemistry seemed to have thousands of these minor type of bonds-- van der Waals, London dispersion etc etc.
Here in New Chemistry we basically have just one bonding-- the plate or plates of a parallel plate capacitor stuck to the plate/s of another Atom's parallel plate capacitor.
As I mentioned before, atoms at most can have 6 faces as a cube or box has 6 faces and so we have the opportunity of a Atom to have 6 parallel plate attachements-- 6 plates for 6 faces.
The Metallic Bonds are dense meaning 4 to 6 faces of the metal atom is bonded to other metal atoms in the stick-and-ball model. Earlier we saw that Sulfur can have 6 bonds and so can Iodine in the stick-ball-model but no more than 6.
The Covalent Bond and Ionic Bond is when 1 or 2 plates of a parallel plate capacitor is stuck to another Atom's 1 or 2 plates or perhaps we can consider 3 or even 4 plates. Again the car battery is many series of parallel plates.
In the minor bonds-- Van der Waals and other, we can view them as 1 plate from one atom stuck to 1 plate of another, or should I say, 1/2 of a parallel plate is 1 of 2 plates. While a full parallel plate is 2 plates.
Now I must consider the flow of the Dirac magnetic monopole and in Ampere's law, the flow of electric current in same direction is a attraction force. So when I say plate stuck to another plate, I mean the magnetic monopole flow in Ampere's law is a bond attraction.
Now nitrogen is supposed to have a triple bond in Old Chemistry. I do not doubt that. However mine gives a whole different geometry to the N2 bond. In that we have at maximum 6 faces on each N atom, 6 parallel plates, and we take 3 half plates from one N and 3 half plates from a second N and combine them to be 3 full plates in the bond.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
1:02 AM (12 hours ago)
to
Now the lovely feature of AP's bonding as parallel plates attach to other atom's parallel plates is radioactivity is more easily explained.
We think of a face of a cube as a parallel plate attachement site, but also as a window for the neutron parallel plate capacitor to emit radioactive decay in the form of Light Wave radiation-- the glow in the dark of radioactive elements.
Or the emission of an entire neutron as parallel plate.
Or the emission of an alpha particle as 4 neutrons as 4 parallel plates.
Alpha particle emission is difficult for physics and Old Chemistry to explain, with their no emission of protons, but emission of a full helium atom. When an atom has 6 faces in a cube, it is easy to emit 4 parallel plate capacitors leaving behind 2.
Of course in radioactive decay, the protons are all bound up into a one full torus with muons inside doing the Faraday law, that muon thrusting is added support against decay.
So the outside skin covering of neutrons in parallel plates is the first to go in case of instability.
And I wrote an entire book on the fact that these glow in the dark radioactive elements are not atom's electrons being emitted or photons emitted in decay, but simply the production of electricity as the muons thrust through the proton torus. The plutonium batteries that power the Voyager spacecraft are still running strong-- because it is the perpetual motion of muons thrusting through proton toruses in the Faraday law.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
2:21 AM (10 hours ago)
to
Now I remember some time ago a philosopher waxing on the idea "the world in a glass of wine" saying about how much the world can be understood from the liquid wine in the glass, which to me is more art than science.
But taking a cue from that. In New Chemistry of AP, how much can I prove that Old Chemistry is wrong, and AP Chemistry is correct from the simple fact of water molecule. We all know how important is water for life. You cannot have life as we know it without water, H2O.
So New Chemistry is the Proton + Muon inside proton doing the Faraday law, producing electricity and the 0.5MeV particle the magnetic monopole and outside the Proton torus is at least a neutron as parallel plate capacitor to capture and storage the electricity produced by proton+muon and to provide skin cover for the proton torus.
But hydrogen of H2O has no neutron. Yes there is heavy water of deuterium for D2O.
But hydrogen without neutrons leads to very many interesting questions. And perhaps a glass of water, alone can prove that AP Chemistry is the true chemistry.
Is it that hydrogen without a neutron is not even a Atom but a partial-atom like a neutron outside a atom or a muon outside a atom. Is hydrogen without a neutron a subatomic particle?
So that H2O is not a molecule but rather is a Oxygen atom that is quasi Neon. Neon isotopes range from 14 to 34. The three stable neon are 20Ne, 21Ne, and 22Ne.
Now all of that is sheer speculation, until you put the facts to H2O, a compound like no other-- freezing it expands. And its angle of bonding is not that of the 6 faces of a cube or box. The 104.45 degree angle of bonding.
Which makes me think that the hydrogen proton + muon are seeking Neutron skin cover.
AP, King of Science, especially physics & logic
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
2:49 AM (10 hours ago)
to
Now this gets into the diatomic element theory that 7 elements exist mostly in the diatomic state. That would cover the need of a neutron skin cover for the hydrogen proton+muon. Where one proton+muon takes a role as being a parallel plate capacitor. But what happens if a H2 meets a fluorine atom and takes only one of the Hydrogen atoms, where does the other hydrogen go?
How about the hydrogen in the Sun, is it of H2 or of singular H.
AP