Atom Totality theory
Archimedes Plutonium
Picture introduction
by Archimedes Plutonium
this is a return to website location
http://www.newphys.se/elektromagnum/physics/LudwigPlutonium/
94th ELECTRON OF 231PU
Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON
::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot
represents another galaxy.
Look in a quantum physics textbook or a chemistry textbook for
pictures of
what an electron looks like. An electron is many white dots surrounding
a
nucleus. This is commonly called the "Electron Cloud". Now, look at
the night
sky and replace those shining galaxies with the white dots of an
electron
cloud. And there you have the Atom Universe theory in a picture.
Why is the universe the isotope 231Pu? Because there are very special
numbers
in both physics and mathematics. And the only chemical element, isotope
that
fits these special numbers best is 231Pu. A few of these special
numbers are
the electromagnetic fine-structure constant, pi, e, cosmic microwave
background
radiation temperature and others.
This is the cover of my textbook on the theory circa 1991.
But I like this one because it contrasts the accepted old view of one
electron
with the new Atom Totality theory.
The picture above showing two books overlapping resting on top of my
briefcase. You can see my briefcase. The one picture on the left is the
cover of
my textbook PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY THEORY and it has three smaller
pictures
within itself. My cover is a tripartate picture. The cover of my
textbook is
tripartate showing (1) the 5f6 of 231PU dot pattern supposed to look
like the
dark night sky of galaxies and to the top left corner I tried to dot
pattern the
Solar System; (2) below the 231PU is the night sky showing galaxies,
stars and
constellations. Do you see the Big Dipper and Sirius which the white
dots are
supposed to represent? (3) to the right of the 231PU is the periodic
table of
chemical elements only much of it is blocked from view by the second
textbook.
The second textbook to the right of my tripartate cover is a page
from
Halliday & Resnick textbook PHYSICS, Part 2, Extended Version , 1986,
of page
572. This is a large electron cloud dot picture for which I quote the
caption.
CHAP.26 CHARGE AND MATTER.
Figure 26-5
An atom, suggesting the electron
cloud and, above, an enlarged view
of the nucleus.
You see, the dots of the electron cloud are the galaxies of the night
sky.
The dots of the electron cloud are actual mass chunks or pieces of the
last 6
electrons, the 5f6 of 231PU.
I may not get around to posting many of the pictures I have made of
electron
clouds. They are some of the pictures of atoms that caught my
interest. The one
which was instrumental in my discovering the Atom Universe theory is
the one
above by Halliday & Resnick and I repeat it below. That picture of the
atom with
dots caught my attention long before 7 Nov 1990 and it was on that day
in 7 Nov
1990 where I connected the dots of the electron cloud with actual
galaxies. Thus
this picture was instrumental in the discovery of the Plutonium
Universe theory.
But, and let me emphasize strongly here that none of the electron cloud
dot
pictures really show clearly the night sky of shining galaxies and
stars. The
discovery of a new theory sees more than what is contained in past
wisdom and
adds something new and pushes it into the new wisdom. I had seen many
pictures
of electron cloud dot patterns mostly in books and even in movies and
TV.
Somehow it was the Halliday & Resnick picture above which jolted my
mind into
the discovery step and although in that picture the white dots are too
dense to
look like the night sky of shining galaxies and stars it was enough
that they
were white dots and that helped tremendously. In most of the other
pictures of
the electron cloud they are black or blue dots set against a light
background,
or they are too fuzzy as shown in _my_ photo of a page from the
Encyclopedia
Britannica.
After 7NOV1990 I have searched many texts to find other pictures which
have dot pictures of the electron cloud. Provided I have enough room on
this web site I will scan all of those pictures in my personal
collection
and post to this site. Pictures speak a thousand words as the old
saying
goes, but better yet, pictures remain in the mind longer than written
words.
The Atom Universe is very easy to explain and this ease is credit to
the
theory that it is the truth. When truth comes to physics the ideas are
immediate, quick, connecting to past great ideas. In one of the
pictures of
me where I am holding the Feynman Lectures text in my hand and please
read the
first chapter and see what Feynman thought was the greatest physics
idea of all.
_My_ photo of pages from the Feynman Lectures on Physics where he
discusses the
Atomic Theory. This came out as a very nice picture for those atoms
look almost
golden due to the vinyl bookcover.
This text stating the Atomic Fact as Feynman emphasizes was
another "push" to my mind to hurdle me into the discovery that the
universe
itself was an atom. For you see, the math logic implication of the
Atomic Fact
or Atomic Hypothesis as so eloquently printed by Feynman comes to the
inexorable
conclusion that since all things are made up of atoms, means that the
sum total
of atoms must also be an atom itself. Restating it, if you hold that
all matter
is made up of atoms leads to the conclusion that the
whole-of-the-universe must
itself be an atom. That is just pure math and science logic. All things
made up
of atoms pushed to math logic conclusion means or implies or leads to
the fact
that the universe itself is an atom. Which atom is it? Well, of course
there are
plenty of special numbers in both physics and math and the atom which
fits best
all of those special numbers is the isotope 231PU. The chemical element
or
isotope that fits all the special numbers of both physics and math best
is
plutonium, specifically 231PU. ATOM
And I had to figure roughly what the 5f6 looks like from the
Schroedinger
Equation in order for me to make my own picture for the front cover of
my text.
This is the dot picture I used on the sci.hierarchies of
Internet for most
of the time to Internet until this page. You can see that I
tried to
simulate my 231PU on the front cover of my text above in ascii
art without
spending too much time. Art can take a long time; time away
from physics.
94th ELECTRON OF 231PU
Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON
::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy.
Halliday and Resnick show white dots but their white dots are too
dense.
The white dots should be spread out more on the scale of what we see in
the
night sky of white dots of stars and galaxies. The night sky that we
see is
just the space and mass of the last electrons of 231PU.
When I showed those 30 pictures, one of them was the electron cloud
from
FEYNMAN LECTURES ON PHYSICS. The white dots of the electron cloud are
too
dense. And now that the world has the true theory of the origin of the
universe
and its future purpose, then textbooks of the future will start to make
more
accurate and more detailed pictures of electron orbitals. I tried to
show the
constellations and brightest stars and galaxies on my cover of my book
PLUTONIUM
ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE because the observable night sky of stars and
galaxies
are the dots of the 231PU One Atom Everything Universe.
This is a beautiful irony in the history of physics. To unravel what
the
atom was, when earnestly pursued in the early 1900s the atom was
conceived
as a miniature Solar System with the electrons as miniature planets
revolving
around a Nuclear Sun. That is what Feynman is showing in his diagram
in this
picture from his Lectures. Now with the Atom Universe the idea and
picture is
the reverse. That the Solar System of stars and planets, and better
yet that
the galaxies all, are bits and pieces of an electron. Our observable
universe
is merely electron space and electron mass. That my friends, is the
biggest
irony in all of science history!
I showed two pictures that are representative of the early models of
atoms.
One is the Rutherford model and the other is the Bohr model of the
early 1900's.
As I said above, the supreme irony in the history of all the sciences
is that
first we wanted to make electrons as miniature planets revolving
around a
nuclear Sun. And now it turns out that the entire observable universe
is merely
the last electrons of a One Atom Everything Universe.
The electron orbital of an atom is a dot picture seen as
approximating
spherical or elliptical or lobelike or toroidal or cylindrical
or plane
geometry in shape.
The atom is governed by a probabilistic math which means there is a
probability
of finding the electron at some position around the nucleus. This
meaning is
the statistical interpretation given by Born to the probability
wavefunction.
This probability results in a dot picture. Drawing a general outline
picture
of an electron orbital is accurate only for a hydrogen atom but for
any atom
which has more than one electron then the outline picture of the
electron
orbital is only a first approximation, because the picture is very
complex due
to the many electron-electron interactions. The position of the
electron is
governed by this probability wavefunction and so reinterpreting Born's
interpretation, I assert that the probability density, the dots
themselves are
parts of the mass of the last 6 electrons, the 5f6 of 231PU. The
parts of mass
is what we see as galaxies. Whenever we collapse the wavefunction of
the
probability density of the 5f6 then what we observe are galaxies of
the night
sky.
In the uncollapsed wavefunction, all electrons go out to
infinity because
the electromagnetic potential V is proportional to 1/r, where r is
distance of
the electron from the nucleus. Since the electromagnetic potential is
infinite,
this implies that the dots of electron density distribution is
infinite. Since
the dots of the probability density distribution represent galaxies
(large dots),
stars and planets (smaller dots inside the larger galaxy dots), and
astronomical
objects and life (tiny dots inside the planet dots); the V implies that
astronomical objects are infinite. Astronomical objects have no end in
the
uncollapsed wavefunction. The further in space we make observations,
the further
we will collapse the probability wavefunction and consequently
materialize newer
astronomical objects. We will never come to an end in observing matter
of the
93rd and 94th electron. Galaxies are more dense near the nucleus and
become
sparser the further out from the nucleus. Much further out from the
nucleus,
there are no more stars or planets, only astronomical objects are
materializable.
Every electron is infinite in the uncollapsed state.
_My_ photograph of a picture taken from a book (I am trying to locate
the book.) I am trying to show electron cloud dot pictures of s, p, d,
and f orbitals. I liked the density of the dots in this picture because
one can see them sort of like individual separate galaxies. Of course
the 5f6 of 231PU is not an s,p,or d orbital but an f orbital.
_My_ photograph of a picture taken from the book
QUANTA: A Handbook of Concepts, 1991, 2nd ed, page 260
showing p-orbital. The cover of this book shows a 4f orbital.
Perhaps this is the first book ever that has a f orbital as its cover.
In the
future there will be many texts of the 5f6 as its front cover.
_My_ photograph of a picture taken from a book and I am trying to
locate
this book. I am trying to show electron cloud dot pictures of s, p, d,
and f
orbitals. In a p orbital one can see the importance of spin and in a
Atom
Totality, the galactic clustering contrasted with large voids implies
spin to
the whole entire universe. If you accept spin in the universe in toto,
then you
must accept the universe as one entity. The only entity which makes
sense would
be an atom.
The above is _my_ photograph of a picture from the book
PHYSICS: Part 2 Extended Version, Halliday & Resnick, 1986, page 1194.
These pictures are the probability density psi^2 for hydrogen atoms in
higher energy states such as the p-orbitals shown. The dots making the
electron
cloud represent 90% of finding the electron according to Born
interpretation,
but according to my interpretation those dots represent 90% of the
actual
electron mass.
Again _my_ photograph of a picture taken from a book. The author was
Mortimer and was my chemistry textbook I used in 1968 and one
of my first encounters of what electrons look like. I believe my very
first
encounter of what an electron looks like occurred circa 1966-1967 in my
High School physics class where I saw a film which showed the electron
cloud
as many white dots. The above is the d orbital.
_My_ photo of a picture out of the textbook QUANTA by Atkins showing
the
f-orbitals, not the 5f but the 4f and this is what the caption reads
"The
boundary surfaces of 4f electrons."
The above is my photograph of a picture from White's text on atomic
spectra.
Few books try to show what the 5f6 looks like.
H. E. White in his textbook INTRODUCTION TO ATOMIC SPECTRA, 1934 uses
a
spinning top to make pictures of what atomic orbitals look like. I also
used
White's picture, enlarging it to make the paper poster which appears on
my
belly and my back and a smaller sized version for my hat in the picture
of me
photographed and put on the front page of THE DARTMOUTH. See that photo
in
math revolutionary section below. Sorry that the "D" was lopped-off in
that
photo and it reads ARTMOUTH. But maybe that is what I was on 7Nov1991,
--
a artful mouth --.
Here I tried to rework White's spinning top look of the 5f6 with a dot
and sheet
pattern for the galaxies. It is becoming apparent to astronomers that
galaxies
are clumped in sheets (The Great Wall) with large voids between. And in
my
rework, knowing that the electron cloud density decreases the further
away from
the nucleus you go, thus I have extended the galaxy-dot-pattern
decreasingly
outward. Each dot represents a galaxy. White in his picture has his
borders all
black, but to be more accurate the galaxy-dots extend out to infinity
but ever
so decreasingly. Talking of tops reminds me of this favorite picture
located in
Halliday & Resnick and shown below is _my_ photo of that picture.
And again I have reworked White's spinning top look of atomic orbitals
in his original picture trying to show the electron cloud dot picture
where
each dot represents a galaxy. The galaxy dots go out to infinity but
they
become less dense the further from the nucleus that you go.
The above is _my_ photograph of a picture from the book THE ELEMENTS
BEYOND
URANIUM, 1990. On page 73, it reads below the picture:
"Figure 3.5 Pictorial representation of the nonrelativistic f orbital
shapes."
There is quite a lot of artistic allowance in the math. And so my
picture of
the 5f6 is quite different from these. But it appears that the shape of
the 5f6
of plutonium has those elongated lobes as seen in the above pictures
and in my
picture. I ask the question would elongated lobes be visible or
detectable in
the night sky of galaxies in some way? And the best I can come up with
is the
fact that we observe these high redshifted galaxy centers. We call
these objects
quasars. And the power source behind quasars are as yet unknown. But
what is
certain about quasars are that they are a phenomenon of only galaxies.
Quasars
do not exist in the Milky Way Galaxy, or do they? Using the Atom
Totality theory,
I make the guess that quasars are just normal galaxy centers but that
their
location, their galaxy location in the 5f6 space is in a highly curved
portion
of one of those lobes. And only because of the quasars position in
space of a
lobe is the spectra so tremendously shifted in the red. And hence, our
Milky Way
galaxy as seen by one of these quasars would appear as a quasar to
them. So that
quasars in an Atom Totality are just normal galaxy centers that happen
to lie in
a highly curved lobe of the 5f6.
PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY
theory
Thorium Atom Totality -> Uranium Atom Totality ->
Plutonium Atom Totality
Explains a 6.5 billion year young universe amongst an older 20.2
billion year stars
by Archimedes Plutonium
this is a return to website location
http://www.newphys.se/elektromagnum/physics/LudwigPlutonium/
In 1994 a team of researchers headed by Wendy Freedman measured
the Hubble constant which computed the age of the universe as 8
billion years old. But the age of the observable universe's
oldest stars is 16-20 billion years old as measured by Sandage et al.
How can you have a younger universe than its oldest stars?
Easy in an Atom Totality. The observable universe is the space of the
last 6 electrons of 231Pu which is the 5f6 space.
Electrons share orbitals, with the 93rd electron spin down and the
94th electron with spin up. The 89th & 90th
electrons form one age ; 91st & 92nd form a different age ;
the 93rd & 94th form the newest age of the 5f6 electron mass and space.
The previous Uranium Atom Totality so to speak little-big-banged
6.5 billion years ago, a alpha decay little-big-bang and accreted
the space and mass of the 93rd & 94th electrons. When we
look out onto the night sky we are seeing the space and mass
of the last 6 electrons of 231PU, the 5f6.
---------------------------------------------------
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.astro
Subject: Freedman et al report universe younger than its oldest stars
Date: 31 Dec 1995 00:15:41 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College
Lines: 65
Message-ID: (4c4knd$a...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
SCIENCE NEWS, Vol. 146, Oct 8, 1994 pages 232-234 titled SEARCHING
FOR
COSMOLOGY'S HOLY GRAIL: HUBBLE TELESCOPE JOINS A CONSTANT BATTLE
--- start quoting of SN in part ---
The Hubble constant represents a measure of the rate at which the
universe is
expanding -- how rapidly each object in the universe speeds away from
any other
object. Armed with this knowledge, scientists can estimate the age of
the cosmos
-- how long since the Big Bang it has taken galaxies to reach their
current
locations.
. . .
Many researchers are hoping that the recent arrival of another
Hubble -- the
Hubble Space Telescope -- may resolve the controversy. Last December,
the
telescope got a new pair of eyeglasses and a new camera with built-in
optics to
correct for Hubble's notoriously flawed primary mirror. The corrective
optics
enable the telescope to produce sharp images of individual bright stars
in
galaxies 10 times farther from Earth than had been possible before.
. . .
Compared with other standard candles, such as supernovas, Cepheids
are
relatively dim. Thus, astronomers had only observed them in galaxies no
more than
about 25 million light-years from Earth. But scientists now report that
they have
seen Cepheids in the Virgo cluster of galaxies-- roughly twice as far
from Earth.
Wendy L. Freedman of the Carnegie Observatories in Pasadena, Calif.,
and her
colleagues, including John P. Huchra of Harvard, recently announced
that they had
used the repaired Hubble Space Telescope to identify and study several
dozen
Cepheids in a spiral member of the Virgo cluster called M100. The
report is one
of the first postrepair studies to measure the Hubble constant. Over
the next
3 years, the team will use Hubble to search for Cepheids in other
members of the
Virgo cluster as well as in certain spiral galaxies used as distance
indicators.
Freedman and her coworkers didn't divulge any numbers for the Hubble
constant
when they presented their work at an August meeting of the
International
Astronomical Union in the Hague, Netherlands. Instead, they'll report
their
conclusions in the Oct. 27 NATURE.
. . .
Alan R. Sandage of the Carnegie Observatories, . . .
. . . Sandage and his colleagues. . . calibrate two la supernovas in
the galaxy
NGC 5253 . . . that the universe is about 20 billion years old.
That would make many theorists happy, because such an age doesn't
conflict
with the estimated age of globular clusters -- dense groupings of stars
in the
Milky Way and other galaxies that appear to be about 16 billion years
old.
--- end quoting of SN in part ---
---------------------------------------------------
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.astro
Subject: Further evidence of a youthful universe,
SCIENCE NEWS, 9Sep95
Date: 30 Dec 1995 23:18:31 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College
Lines: 59
Message-ID: (4c4hc7$5...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
SCIENCE NEWS, Vol. 148, Sept 9, 1995 page 166 titled FURTHER EVIDENCE
OF A
YOUTHFUL UNIVERSE
--- start of quoting SN in part ---
The conundrum continues. Yet another set of observations
indicates that the universe-- as described by a popular
cosmological model-- appears to be younger than its oldest
stars. The new study puts the age of the cosmos at 8.4
billion to 10.6 billion years, younger than the 13 billion
to 16 billion years estimated for elderly stars.
Like the findings that made headlines a year ago, the
new work relied on the Hubble Space Telescope to obtain
the distance to a faraway cluster of galaxies. Combining
that distance with the speed at which this cluster
recedes from Earth, researchers determined the Hubble
constant, which measures the expansion rate and age of the
cosmos (SN: 10/8/94,p.232).
A team led by Nial R. Tanvir of the University of
Cambridge in England used a two-step method to estimate
the constant. First, they observed a type of
"standard candle"--stars known as Cepheid variables--
to find the distance to the spiral galaxy M96 in the Leo
cluster of galaxies. Even at 37 million light years, M96
lies too close to the Milky Way for its velocity to reflect
cosmic expansion unadulterated by the gravitational tug
of other galaxies. But the team used the Leo distance as a
stepping-stone to the more remote Coma cluster.
To obtain the Coma distance, the researchers relied on
a unique property of elliptical galaxies, they report in the
Sept. 7 NATURE. Astronomers have long known that the bigger
an elliptical galaxy, the greater its spread of stellar
velocities. But the exact relationship between the two
remained uncertain. Previous observations had hinted that
the spiral galaxy M96 lies near the center of the Leo cluster,
where the ellipticals gather. This coincidence enabled the
team to use the distance to M96 to calibrate for the first
time the relationship between the size of elliptical
galaxies and their velocity spreads.
Applying this calibration to the elliptical galaxies in
the Coma cluster, the team found a distance of about 345
million light years and a Hubble constant between 61 and
77 kilometers per second per megaparsec (1 parsec is 3.26
light years). In models in which the universe has just
enough matter to keep from expanding forever, this
corresponds to an age of about 9.5 billion years.
The discrepancy between this age and the age of old
stars suggests that astronomers have come to a crossroads. . . .
--- end of quoting SN in part ---
[lines deleted]
Only in an Atom Totality Whole theory can you have
a younger universe within its older stars.
--- quoting SN in part ---
. . .
Some astronomers who question Sandage's results say
that la supernovas may come in more than one wattage
and thus cannot function as a single
standard candle.
. . .
For example, he notes, a high value for the constant
would seem to make the age of the universe half that
of the oldest stars in it, . . .
--- end quoting of SN in part ---
The theoretical solution for the younger universe
than its oldest stars is the realization that the
universe is an atom itself. The space of an atom is
the electron space. Our observable universe is the
masses and spaces of the 5f6 electrons
of 231PU. Electrons share orbitals. Thus the oldest
stars are mass bits of the six 5f6 electrons and the Hubble
constant expansion is the Uranium Atom Totality
expanding into our present Plutonium Atom Totality.
----------------------------------------------------
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.physics
Subject: Freedman age will converge on 6.5 bill yr;
Sandage 20.2 bill yr
Date: 28 Jul 1996 22:41:31 GMT
Organization: PLutonium College
Lines: 106
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (4tgqar$r...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
On 10 Jan 1996 01:27:47 GMT
In article (4cmg44$k...@news.acns.nwu.edu>
"Todd K. Pedlar" (to...@numep1.phys.nwu.edu> writes:
> Not really - the figures which you have quoted are
first of all the
> probabilities at N half-lives that the atom has not
yet decayed.
> Secondly, all you've done is shown an approximation
to the MAXIMUM life
> of an atom, not really its "full life." Technically,
the maximum lifetime
> for a given atom would be infinite. What is the
meaning of "full life",
> anyway? If you were to choose a single atom to observe
until it decays, you
> might find that it "lives" 30 seconds or 30 billion
years. Is its full
> life 30 seconds or 30 billion years? In my opinion,
the most meaningful
> statistic for a single atom is probably the "mean life",
which is simply
> the average lifetime of a given atom. This is equal
to the half-life
> divided by log(2), or 0.693. There is a simple
derivation of this, which
> can be found in any nuclear physics text, such as
Introductory Nuclear
> Physics ...
>
> Todd
It is nice to review old gem books. NUCLEAR
PHYSICS W. Heisenberg 1953 pp45-46
--- quoting NUCLEAR PHYSICS W. Heisenberg 1953 pp45-46 ---
The various radioactive substances show great differences
in their respective speeds of transmutation. Some of these
substances are very short-lived, whilst others last very
long and show no noticeable lessening in radioactivity over
long periods of time. Obviously, for the atoms of every
radioactive substance there exists a probability, capable of
being expressed numerically, of their radioactive decay. The
reciprocal of this probability is the average life of the
substance. The decay probability, and hence also the average
life, is independent of the number of atoms already decayed.
This means that the same percentage of the number of atoms
still intact will decay per unit time. This law is expressed
by the following equation:
dN = -A N dt
with the following solution for N:
N = N_0 e^(-At)
where N_0 is the number of the intact atoms present at the
time t=0, N is their number at the time t, e is the base of
natural logarithms, and A is the decay probability, and
hence 1/A is the average life. Instead of the latter,
the half-life period, T (that period of time during
which exactly one-half of the original number of atoms
decays) is frequently used. The half-life is slightly less
than the average life; it differs from the latter by the
factor log nat 2, the natural logarithm of 2. (If we write
t = 1/A x (Log nat 2), then N = N_0 x e
^(-log nat 2) = 1/2 N_0). This law applies to both
alpha and beta radiation.
Thus the radioactive properties of a homogeneous
substance are determined principally by two factors:
the nature of the emitted particles and the average life
or half-life of the substance.
The gamma rays play a somewhat different part.
We must point out, first of all, that in natural
radioactivity gamma rays do not appear alone, but only
in combination with one of the other two types of
radiation.
--- end quoting NUCLEAR PHYSICS W. Heisenberg 1953 pp45-46 ---
All the elements after bismuth are radioactive and the
longest half-life to alpha decay modes of the
radioactive element isotopes after bismuth is thorium
232@90 with a half-life of 1.4 x10^10 years.
The longest lived half-life for uranium is 238@92 which
has a half-life of 4.5 x10^9 years.
The longest lived half-life for plutonium in the mode of
alpha and negative beta decay is the isotope 244@94 at
8.2 x10^7 years.
Astro ages :
89th + 90th electrons
Oldest group of stars (probably quasars) these
are so old that their age is a measure of their
red shift and one only needs check the difference
in radius of thorium compared to U and Pu to
correlate red shift with atom radius and age
91st + 92nd electrons
Old stars as what Sandage et al are measuring
as 1.4 x10^10 years/.693 = 20.2 bill yrs old.
This is the age of our Sun and inner planets
93rd + 94th electrons
This is our current big bang of a alpha particle
space and our Jupiter and gas giants outward were
started as Schroedinger seed dots and grew.
This is the age Freedman et al is measuring in
their big bang expansion of 4.5 x10^9 / .693 years
which is equal to 6.5 billion years
Recently Freedman and Sandage groups have tried to meet
each other in age. This is science fraud and cheating.
The old logic mindset that the universe can have one and
only one age is too prevalent in those old circles. Sooner
or later scientists will come to admit that the
universe can have more ages because we live in an Atom
Totality Universe. So you can see that Freedman et al at
8 billion years and future researchers will not go up in
age but will come down in age to that of 6.5 billion years.
And Sandage et al instead of their 12-15 billion and
future researchers will go up in age to 20.2 bill for the
oldest in the sky. But really the most oldest for there
are the quasars which are the oldest, the 89th and 90th
electrons space and age in the 5f6.
-----------------------------------------------------
There is good reason why I list this file so close
to the top of the
files and that is because age is in the thick of
controversy. I could
have put other files of supporting evidence close
to the top, such as
cosmic microwave background radiation or missing
mass or many others but
in science it is best to fly-into-the-teeth of
controversy. What I mean
is that I could give 10 or 100 or 1000 better
supporting evidence of the
PU theory than the current Big Bang theory and it
will all be ignored.
Scientists and the general public ignore things
and do not want to upset
the status quo. But there exists in the world a
science momentum, a social
call to arms, to war, like a hurricane eye-of-the
-storm in every science
subject. A science social mileau which speaks of
the topics of that science
which will be discussed and other subjects more
or less ignored. Sort of
like political winds in politics. This focal
issue of a science subject
is a social phenomenon and the center of the
storm for astronomy as of
this writing 3AUG96 is the "Age of the Universe
Controversy".
Above I have used the best age of the alpha
decay modes of Thorium and
Uranium. There is no problem of thorium with
20.2 billion years
matching the oldest stars and that is exactly
where Sandage was going.
Going for the 20 billion year mark for the
oldest stars.
However there is a problem with Uranium in
that its alpha decay mode
is 4.5 bill years half-life which gives a mean
life age for Uranium at
6.5 billion years. Freedman and teams have
reported an age as low as 8
billion years. That suggests either the 4.5
bill yrs given to uranium
half-life is in need of refinement, which I
highly doubt. On the other
hand the Freedman measurements of 8 billion
years are due to come down
lower in figure, from that of 8 billion
years to closer to 6.5 billion
years. This coming down is highly likely
and as we come more
sophisticated in making the Hubble
expansion age measurements, we
will come closer to the 6.5 billion
year age.
----------------------------------------------------
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Carbon Monoxide in quasars; support for Atom Totality
theory
Date: 8 Aug 1996 22:56:55 GMT
Organization: PLutonium College
Lines: 72
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (4udrbn$8...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
References: (4ub961$5...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
--- quoting SCIENCE NEWS, 3AUG96, p68 titled
Opening the Door to the Early Cosmos ---
The universe seems to have grown up in a hurry.
When the cosmos was less than a billion years old -- about 7 percent
of its current age -- some massive galaxies had already assembled, and
an entire generation of stars had lived and died. So report two groups
of astronomers who have independently found a huge amount of carbon
monoxide gas around a distant quasar.
Carbon and oxygen weren't forged in the Big Bang and are known to be
produced only by nuclear burning at the cores of stars.
To examine the vicinity of the quasar, dubbed BR 1202-0725
researchers used telescopes operating at millimeter wavelengths to peer
deep into space and far back in time. The quasar's redshift of 4.69 --
a measure of distance -- indicates that the light now reaching Earth
left this brilliant powerhouse when the cosmos was only about a billion
years old.
In this regard, the carbon monoxide detections, reported in the Aug.
1 NATURE, set a new record. Other astronomers had observed this gas in
the vicinity of two slightly nearer objects-- a quasar at a redshift of
2.5 and a gas cloud at a redshift of 3.1.
To obtain the new data, Alain Omont of the Institute of Astrophysics
in Paris and his colleagues used a quartet of millimeter-wave antennas
built by the Institute of Millimeter Radio Astronomy on the Plateau de
Bure in France. A second team, which includes Toru Yamada of Japan's
Institute of Physical and Chemical Research in Saitama, relied on the
Nobeyama Millimeter Array in Nagano.
Astronomers had previously found an enormous amount of dust,
possibly heated or produced by stars, around the quasar (SN: 9/17/94,
p. 188). The observations of carbon monoxide bolster the case for a
previous generation of stars. They also confirm that distant quasars
don't exist in solitary confinement but lie at the center of
star-forming galaxies, notes cosmologist Martin J. Rees of the
University of Cambridge in England. "Until recently, the only objects
at [large distances] have been quasars.... This is fairly direct
evidence that large galaxies had already assembled."
Can theories of galaxy formation explain such rapid assembly?
Observations of a single, distant quasar aren't enough to spell
trouble for any theory. Many astronomers think of quasars and the
galaxies that house them as rare beasts that may not represent
conditions typical in the cosmos. If researchers continue to spy normal
galaxies -- those not associated with quasars -- further and further
back in time, however, some models may fall by the wayside (SN:
6/29/96, p. 406). "Obviously, the earlier galaxies formed, the more
constraints on theories," Rees notes.
Omont's team found two blobs of carbon monoxide emission. One blob
is centered on the quasar's visible-light image; the other lies a few
hundred thousand light-years away and has no known optical counterpart.
This second blob might represent a cosmic mirage, in which the gravity
of a foreground galaxy splits the quasar light into several images, but
it could also be a bona fide galaxy, hidden by dust, that shows up only
at far-infrared or millimeter wavelengths.
If the object is real, says Richard Barvainis of the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology's Haystack Observatory in Westford, Mass., it
could herald a new era in astronomy. A slew of even more primitive
quasars and galaxies may lie cloaked in dust, waiting to be unveiled by
the next generation of millimeter-wave and radio telescopes, he notes.
--- end quoting SCIENCE NEWS, 3AUG96, p68 titled
Opening the Door to the Early Cosmos ---
Of course the above new data spells the death throes yet again for
the Big Bang theory, but adds more life, more and more life into the
One Atom Everything Universe. In a 231PU Atom Totality, there are many
ages, perhaps 94/2 = 47 ages in all (provided if all are alpha decays)
wherein the Thorium Atom Totality age was 20.2 billion years old and
the Uranium Atom Totality age was 6.5 billion years old. Quasars in the
PU theory are the stars of the Thorium Atom Totality, the oldest stars
of the 5f6.
As astronomers get more sophisticated, they can correlate the carbon
monoxide with the oldest stars of Sandage et al.
PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY:
Cosmic Abundance of the Chemical
Elements
The cosmic abundance of elements
by Archimedes Plutonium
this is a return to website location
http://www.newphys.se/elektromagnum/physics/LudwigPlutonium/
COSMIC ABUNDANCE OF THE CHEMICAL ELEMENTS
The cosmic abundance of the elements suggested by the Big Bang
would predict
a lower abundance of hydrogen coupled with the age prediction of the
observable
universe. In the Big Bang model, all the other elements were derived
from
hydrogen nucleosynthesis. Considering the average lifespan of a large
star which
will terminate in a supernova explosion and the maximum age of the
observable
universe according to the Big Bang then it is mathwise impossible to
have the
uniformity and homogeneity spread of the elements throughout the
observable
universe and still maintain the cosmic abundance of hydrogen. The
three facts of
(1) the homogenous dispersal of the elements from carbon on up (2) the
prevalent
abundance of hydrogen (3) the maximum age of the observable universe as
calculated by the Big Bang model, are mathwise impossible.
The Big Bang model would predict a gradual decline in abundance
of the
elements concomitant with increase in atomic number. What needs
explanation in
the Big Bang model is the fact of increase in atomic number with an
increase in
abundance but with less stability than its neighboring elements. The
element
thorium and uranium are such elements. A PU model would require
differential
abundances of elements even though these elements have a higher atomic
number.
The reason-- the differential abundance of the elements are required
for
stability of successive atom totality and the case for a
purposeful-atom-
totality going towards a heavier element atom totality. Biological
evolution
which is nucleosynthesis is a purposeful process. We would not be here
now to
discuss a Plutonium Atom Totality if it was not for the prevalence of
thorium
and uranium inside the Earth heating-up the interior and having caused
mutation
of genetic material in the past. The abundance of the radioactive
elements is
required in the future for us to obtain huge supplies of energy
required for
heavy element nucleosynthesis.
The Big Bang model of the observable universe predicts that the
element
technetium with atomic number 43 by laws of math probability must be
more
abundant in the observable universe than the higher odd numbered atomic
elements
such as rhenium atomic number 75. A Big Bang model would show at
least one
nuclide of each mass number stable to radioactive beta decay modes. Yet
technetium and promethium are counterexamples. An atom built totality
would
explain the abundance of thorium 90 and uranium 92 and the depletion of
technetium 43 and promethium 61 in the observable universe, because of
a
purposeful-atom-totality.
PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY
theory
Explains the inverse fine-structure variable of 137 ,
and proton to electron mass ratio, in physics
by Archimedes Plutonium
this is a return to website location
http://www.newphys.se/elektromagnum/physics/LudwigPlutonium/
Explains the inverse fine-structure variable of 137 , and proton to
electron
mass ratio, in physics
Dirac's book DIRECTIONS IN PHYSICS states on page 73 :
--- start of Dirac quote ---
One of these dimensionless constants is the famous reciprocal
of the
fine-structure constant
((hbar) x c)/E^2
It is fundamental in the atomic theory, and it has the value of about
137.
Another dimensionless constant is the ratio of the mass of the proton
to the
mass of the electron, that is to say,
Mp/Me
That constant has the value somewhere near 1840.
--- end of Dirac quote ---
A more accurate measurement as of this writing, the value is about
1836.1527.
I demonstrate the meaning for both of these unitless markers of
physics which
Dirac talks. Dirac stated that physics will not go very far until
someone can
demonstrate the meaning of the fine-structure marker. Anyone who has
Dirac's
precise quotes on the importance of the fine-structure marker please
email. And,
I share that sentiment with Dirac that the meaning of the
fine-structure marker
of physics is one of the most important unsolved, outstanding problems
of
physics. Going beyond Dirac in his statement above, it is now
experimentally
known in high energy physics that the fine-structure marker is not a
constant
but a variable. Whether Dirac himself knew that alpha is a variable I
myself do
not know. Quoting from the textbook QUARKS & LEPTONS: AN INTRODUCTORY
COURSE IN
MODERN PARTICLE PHYSICS, 1984, page 13
--- start of p 13 quote ---
For historical reasons, alpha is known as the fine structure
constant.
Unfortunately, this name conveys a false impression. We have seen that
the
charge of an electron is not strictly constant but varies with distance
because of quantum effects; hence alpha must be regarded as a variable,
too.
The value 1/137 is the asymptotic value of alpha shown in Fig. 1.5a.
--- end of p 13 quote ---
I give the meaning for the ratio of proton mass divided by
electron mass as
follows. The unitless number of the proton mass divided by the electron
mass is
about 1836.1527 which is about 6(pi^5). The last electron subshell of
a
plutonium atom is 5f6. Notice that the two digits of 5 and 6 are in
both 6(pi^5)
and 5f6. So for the 6 electrons in the 5f energy shell gives 6(pi^5).
When we
atom, electron parts of a Plutonium Atom Totality measure the mass
ratio of a
proton to an electron inside of (superpositioned onto) a Plutonium Atom
Totality then the unitless number results as 6(pi^5). In the next atom
totality of element 95, the mass ratio of proton to electron as
measured by
sacks of life atoms of life in a 95th electron observable universe will
be
7(pi^5).
(A) THE MEANING OF THE FINE-STRUCTURE MARKER FOR THE NEUTRONS.
The
physical meaning of the inverse fine-structure marker for the neutrons
is the
fact that there are exactly 137 neutrons in the nucleus of the
Plutonium Atom
Totality, which is the isotope 231@94.
The inverse fine-structure marker is a variable in high energy
physics. In
many books it is written as a constant which is slightly more than the
number
137, but this is incorrect with physics experiments. In high energy
physics, the
inverse fine-structure marker or the fine-structure marker, either one
is a
variable. But, over its range of values, the most frequent value of the
inverse
fine-structure marker is the number 137. Statistically the average
value of the
inverse fine-structure variable over its range of values from high
energy
physics to low energy physics is exactly 137. Because the totality is a
dynamical system due to spontaneous neutron materialization,i.e. the
creation
of new matter in the universe in a logarithmic spiral rate, then the
inverse
fine-structure marker will increase with time since it is a reflection
of the
present atom totality that in the future it will increase to 138. The
inverse
fine-structure marker is exactly 137 neutrons in the collapsed
wavefunction
and in the uncollapsed wavefunction of 231@94 when the value of pi is
taken as
exactly equal to 22/7, the inverse fine-structure marker is exactly
((22/7)^7)/22. It is like QM, when a wave measurement is made in the
double-slit
experiment then the numbers are trigonometric, continuous. The
measurement is
continuous as pi is continuous and transcendental, not discrete as the
Rational
number approximation 22/7. A Rational number is a collapsed
wavefunction into
discreteness from pi as a transcendental number. But when a particle
measurement
in QM is made the numbers are discrete, Rational numbers.
The Born statistical interpretation of how to get meaning out
of quantum
mechanics, is that you take the absolute square of the wave function
(the wave
function is Complex numbers with i values but the absolute square value
are Real
numbers), where psi is the solution to the Schroedinger equation. psi
= a + ib,
IpsiI^2 = psi' psi,
IpsiI^2 = (a - ib)(a + ib),
IpsiI^2 = (a^2) - (i^2b^2)-(iba)+ (iba),
IpsiI^2 = a^2 + b^2,
When psi = a1psi1 + a2psi2, these amplitudes have no physical meaning,
but then
the square of the amplitudes gives a probability density function which
tells
you the probability of finding an electron at a certain position at a
given time,
where psi'psi = (a1'psi1' + a2'psi2') x (a1psi1+ a2psi2) =
Ia1I^2Ipsi1I^2 +
Ia2I^2Ipsi2I^2 + a1a2'psi1psi2' + a1'a2psi1'psi2. Then one way in
which you
can interpret this square is that it is the probability of finding the
electron
at a certain position at a given time. In another interpretation, with
a
different set of eigenvalues, replacing electron position for the
number of
neutrons in the nucleus, then the wavefunction is a statistical average
of the
number of neutrons in the atom totality. Thus using a Born statistical
interpretation of the probability amplitudes for the number of neutrons
of the
Plutonium Atom Totality is seen to be exactly the number 137.
A list of some of the radioactive isotopes follows. A Born
statistical
interpretation would require all the radioactive elements after stable
bismuth
and would require a correlation with the relative abundance of these
isotopes.
Element @85, isotope 219@85 has 134 neutrons, 85 protons. No @85
isotope with
137 neutrons.
Element @86, isotope 223@86 has 137 neutrons, 86 protons.
Element @87, isotope 224@87 has 137 neutrons, 87 protons.
Element @88, isotope 225@88 has 137 neutrons, 88 protons.
Element @89, isotope 226@89 has137 neutrons, 89 protons.
Element @90, isotope 227@90 has137 neutrons, 90 protons.
Element @91, isotope 228@91 has 137 neutrons, 91 protons.
Element @92, isotope 229@92 has 137 neutrons, 92 protons.
Element @93, isotope 230@93 has137 neutrons, 93 protons.
Plutonium isotopes 230@94, 232@94, 233@94, 234@94, 235@94, 236@94,
237@94,
238@94, 239@94, 240@94, 241@94, 242@94, 243@94, 244@94, 245@94,
246@94,
have correspondingly 136, 138,
139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,
151,152 neutrons, 94 protons.
Element @95, isotope 232@95 has 137 neutrons, 95 protons.
No element @96 with isotopes numbering 137 neutrons.
In regards with the statistics of radioactive isotopes and
stable isotopes I
make the following conjecture. I speculate that in the future, with the
atom
totality theory as the mainstream physics, that we will be able to have
a math
and physics equation such as the Schroedinger Equation which is so good
that the
equation, call it the Isotope Equation (IE) will predict the exact
number of
possible isotopes for each element, both stable and unstable. It is my
hope that
since the fine-structure marker is a variable and not a constant that
this
variable range of values will be utilized to accurately predict the
possible
range of values of the number of neutrons each element can have. The
theory will
predict how many isotopes are possible for each atomic numbered
element, and
what is the range of possible mass numbers for the isotopes. Then the
experimentalists will go out and make those isotopes and show that they
are
unable to make the impossible isotopes. But the fact of the Atom
Totality and
that it is 231@94 makes the predicting equation IE work. For example,
in a
231@94 atom totality, element technetium and promethium can not have a
stable
isotope.
(B) THE MEANING OF THE FINE-STRUCTURE MARKER FOR THE
ELECTRONS.
A very close derivation of the fine-structure constant of
1/137.036 was
given in a maths journal. A math researcher, Wyler, considered a seven-
dimensional pseudoorthogonal group. Five of the dimensions are real and
two of
the dimensions are imaginary. Wyler then calculated volume elements
for the
seven-dimensional group and for the subgroup of the five real
dimensions, and
takes their quotient. The result ((9/(8(pi^4)))((pi^5/((2^4)5!))^1/4))
is
equated to the fine-structure constant. I now reinterpret Wyler's
result. Of
course in my reinterpretation, there are no dimensions beyond the 3rd
and the
fine-structure marker is not a constant due to physical experiments in
high
energy physics the fine-structure marker is really a variable. But
continuing
with the result ((9/(8(pi^4)))((pi^5/((2^4)5!))^1/4)), just as it was
shown
that Heisenberg's matrix theory was transformable to Schroedinger's
wave
mechanics, it can be shown that the 7-dimensional group is
transformable to
the principal quantum number n=7 of 231@94. See chart 1.
The physical meaning of the fine-structure marker for the
electrons is the
geometry of the 7 electron shells for 231@94. And thus, I derive the
fine-structure marker as exactly 22/((22/7)^7) when pi is in the
collapsed
wavefunction of pi = 22/7. Or I derive the inverse fine-structure
marker of
exactly 137 for the electrons as ((22/7)^7)/22, again in the collapsed
wavefunction of pi = 22/7. A Plutonium Atom Totality would correlate
the
numbers of pi, e, 22/7, 19/7, (pi^7)/22, ((22/7)^7)/22, and 137
with/to the
subshell and shell structure of the Atom Totality. Those numbers are
important and have the values that they have because they are the
numbers of
our Maker.
Element @94 has 2 electrons in the 1st shell; 8 electrons in
the 2nd shell;
8 electrons in the 3rd shell; 18 electrons in the 4th shell; 18
electrons in the
5th shell; 32 electrons in the 6th shell and 8 electrons in the 7th
shell. Take
special notice in the chart below of successive subshells for element
@94 that
there are 19 occupied subshells in a total of 22 subshells for the 7
energy
shells of @94. At this point the reader should take note that the two
most
special numbers for both math and physics are pi and e. I say special
because
they are used throughout both math and physics. Note that the rational
approximations of pi is 22/7 and the rational approximation of e is
19/7.
Reader take notice that 22/(pi^7) is approximated by
22/((22/7)^7).
energy occupied subshells number of electrons in each shell
1s 2
2s,2p 8
3s,3p 8
4s,3d,4p 18
5s,4d,5p 18
6s,4f,5d,6p 32
7s,5f,6d,7p 8
----------- ----
add these occupied subshells 94
total occupied subshells is 19
energy 1 2 3 4 5 6
7
s s p s p d s p d f s p d f s p d f
s p d f
U 92 2 2 6 2 6 10 2 6 10 14 2 6 10 3 2 6 1 2
Np 93 2 2 6 2 6 10 2 6 10 14 2 6 10 4 2 6 1 2
Pu 94 2 2 6 2 6 10 2 6 10 14 2 6 10 6 2 6 2
@95 2 2 6 2 6 10 2 6 10 14 2 6 10 7 2 6 2
There are 7 shells and there are 22 possible s, p, d, f
electron subshells
for @94. Thus 22/(22/7)^7 is the fine-structure marker exactly when
plutonium is
in the collapsed wavefunction resulting in the exact value of pi =
22/7.
Physically it is made more precise when compensating for the
geometrical factor
of unoccupied subshells in the 6f, 7d, and 7f, when those subshells
are
reckoned.
Math defines pi as the ratio of the circumference divided by
the diameter
in Plane Euclidean geometry. But also, pi shows-up unexpectedly in many
branches of math such as probability theory. The ultimate meaning of pi
comes
from the Plutonium Atom Totality and that meaning is the exact total
number of
electron subshells of 231@94 divided by the exact number of electron
shells of
231@94. That is the reason pi is a number between 3 and 4, because of
the
subshell and shell structure of 231@94. Remember that the principal
quantum
number n is the shell and refers to the relative average distance of
the
electron from the nucleus, so n is taken as the diameter, and the
quantum
number L, the orbital angular momentum, gives the subshell and the
shape of
the orbital for the electron, thus L is the circumference.
For positive curvature or Riemannian geometry, pi is a
rational number
approximation 22/7. The collapse of the wavefunction is the collapse
of pi
into a rational number. The use of pi throughout science is a
reflection of
the number 22/7 which comes from 22 possible s, p, d, f electron
subshells in
7 electron shells of PU. Thus in the future when the atom totality has
transmuted via spontaneous fission to a heavier element atom totality
whose
total possible number of electron subshells is 26 not 22, then the
numerical
value of the number pi will change but this new number will have the
same
role as pi had for PU. Math changes along with the new atom totality.
Much
more on maths later. The only thing which goes on forever without
change is
the Atomic Fact, that everything is atoms.
(C) THE MEANING OF THE FINE-STRUCTURE MARKER FOR THE PROTONS.
The meaning
of the fine-structure marker for the protons is connected with the
Planck
linear marker (h), Boltzmann marker (k), the gravitational marker (G),
and a
new marker which I denote as Coupling-Strengthspontaneous fission (CS).
CS
represents the relative strength of the strong nuclear interaction in
comparison to the electromagnetic interaction to spontaneous fission.
Then h
is set proportional to the whole quantity of (kxGxCS). Gravitation and
the
strong nuclear are complementary duals.
First to compute the parameters of this new marker CS.
first step: (kxGxCS) proportional to h
second step: (1.38 x 10^-23 J/K ) X (6.67 x 10^-11 M^3/(S^2xKg)) X CS
* (6.63 x 10^-34 J xS)
third step: (1.38 x 10^-23 1/ K ) X (6.67 x 10^-11 M^3/(S^2xKg)) X CS
* (6.63 x 10^-34 S)
fourth step: (1.38 x 10^-23 1/ K) X (6.67 x 10^-11 M^3/(S^3xKg)) X CS
* (6.63 x 10^-34 )
fifth step: (1.38 x 10^-23 1/ K) X (1.006 x 10^23 M^3/(S^3xKg)) X CS
* 1
sixth step: (1.388 M^3/(KxS^3xKg)) X CS * 1
seventh step: CS * .720 (KxS^3xKg)/M^3
The unitless variable of the fine-structure marker of the
electromagnetic
force is approximately 1/137 which is approximately .0072. The numbers
.720
and .0072 are not coincidental but are a reflection that the
fine-structure
marker is experimentally derived in the same units of physical
measurement.
The fact that the strong nuclear interaction to spontaneous fission is
100
times stronger than the proton electromagnetic interaction is a well
known
observable fact since atoms which have 100 protons are very unstable
with
very short spontaneous fission half-life.
GROUND STATE SPONTANEOUS FISSION RATES
Nuclide SF T1/2
237@93 3 X10^18 years
236@94 3.5 X10^9 years
238@94 5 X10^10 years
239@94 5.5 X10^15 years
240@94 1.2 X10^11 years
242@94 7.1 X10^11 years
244@94 2.5 X10^10 years
232@95 1.5 min
234@95 2.6 min
240@95 0.0085 sec
241@95 2.3 X10^14 years
242@95 0.014 sec
244@95 0.001 sec
240@96 1.9 X10^6 years
242@96 7.2 X10^6 years
244@96 1.4 X10^7 years
246@96 2 X10^7 years
248@96 4.6 X10^6 years
250@96 2 X10^4 years
249@97 >1.4 X10^9 years
252@98 82 years
254@98 60.7 days
253@99 7 X 10^5 years
254@99 1.5 X 10^5 years
252@100 140 years
254@100 246 days
255@100 1.0 X 10^4 years
256@100 160 minutes
257@100 100 years
255@101 > 3 hours
254@102 3 sec
Source: THE TRANSURANIUM ELEMENTS 0033 GolĮdanskii & Polikanov
Notice that at element 100 the strength of the electromagnetic
to strong
nuclear to spontaneous fission has reached a physical limit in scale of
microseconds.
Thus using CS approx= .720 (KxS^3xKg)/M^3 when divided by 100
in
consideration that 1 proton strong nuclear interaction in a nucleus of
100
protons is 100 times greater than the electromagnetic interaction. So,
for
1 proton, CS is (.720/100) (KxS^3xKg)/M^3 . Note that the parameters
of
this new marker CS has the units configuration that is mathly a volume
space,
since the units of measurement are cubed.
So for 1 proton, CS = a(KxS3xKg)/M3, where a is the unitless
fine-structure
marker. Thus a = CS/((KxS^3xKg)/M^3). However the number of protons
for
plutonium is 94 was not directly used in the derivation of the
fine-structure
marker for protons. The number 94 does enter into the calculation when
considering that the nucleus of a plutonium atom has 94 protons and 137
neutrons which added together is 231. Now consider a transformation
that
since the intrinsic temperature of plutonium is 2.74 and the quantum
number
of 2 is duality and thus existence, then, when 2.74 is divided by 2
gives a
number 1.37. Now time t2 is inversely proportional to temperature and
so
1.37 is time t2 of a plutonium atom in connection with 2 and 2.74.
Transforming 231 to 2.31 and taking the uncertainty principle
substituting
2.31 as energy multiply 1.37 as time t2 gives 3.16. The number 3.16 is
a
math analog of linear Planck's marker h. A hydrogen atom with 1 proton
and
1 electron has no measured strong nuclear force, but a helium atom with
2
neutrons, 2 protons, 2 electrons has a strong nuclear force. The
quantum
nucleosynthesis from hydrogen with 1 nucleon to helium with 4 nucleons
is
(3.16)^4 since 3 more nucleons plus spin/angular momentum .5x.5x.5 is
about .13, plus adding .01 for electromagnetic energy of 1 new proton,
plus
.01 for 1 new electron plus .01 for 1 neutrino gives 3.16, where
(3.16)^4
which is 100. So from 94 protons and 137 neutrons of a plutonium atom,
I
have derived the number of 100, making the solution of the
fine-structure
marker for protons unique to the proton structure of plutonium.
Before I leave this topic notice that the unitless number of proton
to
electron mass ratio has an exponent power of 5 in 6(pi^5), and that the
exp
5 comes from the 5f6. Now, notice the inverse fine-structure marker of
((22/7)^7)/22 also has the energy shell of 7 as exponent. Here for the
first time is a linkage of two unitless numbers of physics-- proton to
electron mass ratio and the fine-structure marker, by the fact that
energy
level of shell correlates and predicts what the exponent of a unitless
number
must have. Why does the energy shell take on a math form of exponent?
Perhaps
an expert quantum chemist or physicist can provide an answer.
PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY
theory
Explains the uniform blackbody 2.71 K cosmic
microwave background radiation
by Archimedes Plutonium
this is a return to website location
http://www.newphys.se/elektromagnum/physics/LudwigPlutonium/
Explains uniform blackbody 2.71 K cosmic microwave background
radiation
First question to those who know physics, can you really have a
blackbody radiation such as the ones that Planck had studied and
had researched and used to form the foundation of quantum mechanics
and to think for one moment that it is not uniform, that it may have
fluctuations?
---------------------------------------------------------------
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.physics
Subject: non-Gaussian microwave radiation of universe and Atom Totality
Date: 6 Nov 1998 03:31:30 GMT
Organization: more support for Atom Totality theory
Lines: 42
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <71tqii$7rb$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
The below new information on the cosmic microwave background
radiation, MWR, is consistent with the Atom Totality theory in that the
observable universe is the last 6 electrons of 231Pu, thus the 6
electron spaces in the 5f6 makes for this uniformity of MWR, rather
than the randomness that the Big Bang and inflation theories imply.
--- quoting in parts NEW SCIENTIST, 31 October 1998 ---
A strange pattern in the cosmic background radiation, the lingering
afterglow of the big bang, may shake cosmology to its roots by
undermining a theory called inflation. This says that the young
Universe went through a momentary phase of superfast expansion.
David Valls-Gabaud of CNRS, the French national scientific research
agency in Strasbourg, and his colleagues found the odd feature in a sky
map built up by NASA's Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite...
The map shows ripples--variations in the wavelength or "temperature"
of the radiation around the average of 2.726 kelvin. These hot and cold
spots represent ...
Taken together, inflation and CDM predict that the hot and cold spots
discovered by COBE should be in a random distribution known as a
Gaussian distribution. But Valls-Gabaud and his colleagues found that
there is a large region of the sky near the north pole of our Galaxy
where they are non-Gaussian. "It was a massive surprise," says
Valls-Gabaud.
Valls-Gabaud says his team found the anomaly because they used a
technique called wavelet analysis, which no one else has tried. But
some researchers remain unconvinced that the non-Gaussian feature
exists. "Other groups have looked hard and failed to find such
effects," says Martin Rees of the University of Cambridge.
Valls-Gabaud is not sure what caused the anomaly. It could be a local
source of radiation in the sky, perhaps glowing dust surrounding our
Galaxy. "But any such source would have to be very large."
Or perhaps the clumps were not made by inflation and CDM. "One idea is
that they were made by textures, a three-dimensional network of cracks
in space," Valls-Gabaud says. Such cracks would produce a non-random
distribution of hot and cold spots. "It would undermine inflation and
cold dark matter," he says.
Rees agrees that if the non-randomness exists, it could support a
texture model. He believes, however, that the theory emphasising the
role of inflation and CDM could be salvaged by combining these two
phenomena with the texture model.
Valls-Gabaud's results will be published next month in the journal
Physical Review Letters.
--- end quoting in parts NEW SCIENTIST, 31 October 1998 ---
----------------------------------------------------
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.
particle,sci.chem,sci.physics.electromag,sci.astro
Subject: Re: Minimum Coulomb Interactions for plutonium
Date: 30 Sep 1995 02:39:12 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College
Lines: 92
Message-ID: (44iakg$3...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
References: (447foo$u...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
(44e36n$a...@rzsun02.rrz.uni-hamburg.de>
In article (44e36n$a...@rzsun02.rrz.uni-hamburg.de>
fc3...@AMRISC03.math.uni-hamburg.de (Hauke Reddmann) writes:
> And Pu is then the case where even the Schroedinger
> equation can't be written out. (Remember that Pu has a so high
> mass number that relativistic effects come in.) In this case you
> use approximations, like treating closed shells as a spherically
> symmetric potential. Of course the calculations then are not
> nearly exact as in the H case.
> So, which value should YOU use? As you are sort of a
> neopythagorean, I fear you won't be satisfied with approximations
> and must use the 95!/2 value. Even worse, this only nails down
> the coulomb interactions. There are loads of second-order effects
> due to spin dependent interactions.
> Hope this helps. This post got very long, but you see what happens
> when you get into the realm of "dirty" science, with all sorts of
> models, approximations and calculations.
Thank you very much both Hauke Reddmann and Gerald L. Hurst, and
bless the both of you to the Fields of Elysium.
The Coulombic states is a very large number indeed. And it is
commonsense and intuition that says that a neon atom is held in
place by lots more than just 190 things going on. Neon is held up
by at least 10^7 things going on.
I can use any of these large numbers for plutonium,
(2^188 x2x2x2) of (n,L,M_L,m_s), or the 95!/2, or the one which
I favor the most since as of recent it comes from the Hydrogen
Atom Systems where all the forces are either Coulombic or
Radioactivity. Thus 231PU is ((2^231) x2x2x2) or 232!/2.
With those large numbers it really does not matter for the
difference of one more electron and proton in the next element
after plutonium, which is element 95. These numbers are so huge
and that is what is needed in order to compose a thermodynamics.
I could not compose a satisfying thermodynamics for plutonium
with just 94x187 = 17578 things going on.
The cosmic microwave background radiation is blackbody radiation.
The fact that it is blackbody seems to have escaped the attention of
virtually every physicist and scientist alive except me. For if they
deny that they missed it, and understood what it means to be blackbody
and the implication of something "being" a blackbody, because blackbody
directly implies a structure, yes, a structure, then ask them what
structure they understood it to be if they claim they understood it
initially? An onion?
I have combed every science magazine and journal and have never seen
any physicist or writer display that math logic reasoning and well
thinking for all mention blackbody but noone said or printed the next
logical step, if blackbody then it is a structure. Our observable
universe is a structure itself.
I knew the structure to be a blackbody cavity because the 94th+93rd
electron space is a blackbody cavity and that is why the night sky is
black because it is a blackbody cavity. Get it -- blackbody means
black.
The book LA THERMODYNAMIQUE DE LA PARTICULE ISOLEE
(OU THERMODYNAMIQUE CACHEE DES PARTICULES)
(btw, I like that title with the word "cachee"
and obviously this book is written in French and it is one of the
greatest books ever written. It is truly amazing of the dazzling genius
of Debroglie to have anticipated so much in advance) written by
Debroglie, 1964, considers the relativistic fluctuations of mass of
subatomic particles such as the protons, electrons. And then associates
temperature with a relativistic statistical mechanic.
I am following Debroglie's intuition, except replacing relativistic
mass fluctuations with statistical quantum fluctuations of the Coulomb
interactions for a plutonium atom in order to derive an intrinsic
associated temperature for an electron cavity, which is simply the
space occupied by an electron of 231 plutonium atom.
Let me use 95!/2 or either 232!/2 as the "Coulombic states" and with
this large number of statistical interactions, I propose to find an
intrinsic temperature for the 94th electron of an isolated plutonium
atom.
From pages 94-101, Debroglie works with the formula 1/T = dS/dL
where T is temperature, dS is the derivative of entropy with respect to
the lagrangian L which is kinetic energy of a system minus the
potential energy of that system. Debroglie derives the formula m_0cc =
kT_0 , then where M_0 is proportional to the factor e^(S/k) as M_0 =
m_0 thus the entropy is proportional to the Boltzmann factor
e^(-M_0/m_0), thence 1/T = e^(-M_0/m_0)/ d L. Now taking the idea of a
neutron of a neptunium atom radioactively growing to transform into a
plutonium atom in which the term d L is very close to 1 by the factor
(neutron/neutron) - ((proton + electron)/neutron). So 1/T =
e^(-188/186) K/1 which is 1/T = 1/e^(188/186) K. So the thermodynamic
of the isolated plutonium atom or the blackbody temperature of a
plutonium atom is exp188/186 K which is the value of 2.74 degrees
Kelvin. The presently determined value by the COBE satellite for the
cosmic background microwave temperature of the observable universe is
2.735 + 0.06 K. I assert that it is not coincidence that the value for
the cosmic background microwave radiation temperature of 2.7 is close
to the value of the number e in maths.
PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY
theory
Explains Dark Night Sky (Olber's paradox) easily
by Archimedes Plutonium
this is a return to website location
http://www.newphys.se/elektromagnum/physics/LudwigPlutonium/
An electron itself is a perfect quantum blackbody cavity.
Blackbody--that is why the night sky is dark explaining
Olbers paradox. Do yourself a favor and look at pictures of
electron orbitals in a quantum physics book. The s orbital
is the simplest of a perfect sphere. Perfect cavity-- that
is why the microwave background radiation is quantized and
relentlessly uniform, and in addition that is why the
cosmic gamma ray bursts are relentlessly uniform.
DARK NIGHT SKY
I give purely geometrical reasons for refuting the Steady-State
and the Big Bang theories.
The night sky should be bright, as bright as the surface of
the Sun for the Steady-State theory since the space is plane
Euclidean infinite. For the Steady-State theory there are an
infinite number of stars, and galaxies, because for an infinite
space of Euclidean (or also Lobachevskian) there must be
infinite mass via GR. But any night that we observe the sky we
immediately realize it is dark. Thus the dark night sky
instantly refutes the Steady-State.
The Big Bang theory is also rejected by the dark night
sky observation for if the observable universe started from a
Big Bang then it started with Riemannian space since it was a
concentrated point. The geometry of a point is Riemannian.
And if the universe at present has Riemannian space then
photons would circumtravel around and come back, thus the sky
should be ablaze. It should be bright, not dark. And if the
Big Bang theory supposes that our present space is Euclidean
or Lobachevskian would imply that at some moment of time in
the past the Big Bang switched-over from being Riemannian,
because a point is Riemannian geometry, to that of being
Euclidean or Lobachevskian geometries which is ad hoc science.
If you then try to make the Big Bang theory have finite mass
to accord with a Riemannian space but space as infinite such
as Euclidean or Lobachevskian, reduces logically to saying
that the universe has at least two spaces superpositioned at
the same time, which implies the quantum superposition
principle which implies the observable universe has structure,
which implies the totality is an atom.
To inject inflationary models into the Big Bang helps the
Big Bang overcome the apparent flatness of our observable
universe, but an inflation is ad hoc for it requires an
explanation for why it should inflate? And an inflation, no
matter how big or rapidly is still Riemannian space where
light from stars will circumtravel around and thus the night
sky is not as bright as the surface of the Sun, but it is
still light and not dark.
A dark night sky works only in an atom totality. The dark
night sky or Olber's paradox dispels both the Steady-State
and the Big Bang theories, leaving only the Plutonium Atom
Totality with a satisfactory answer to such a simple question.
Why is the night sky dark? Answer. The electron
observable universe, the space of the last two electrons, the
93rd and 94th electron is a quantum blackbody cavity.
Blackbody cavities, remember, was how QM originated through
the work of the great quantum physicists Stefan, Boltzmann,
Wien, Planck et al. Blackbody means dark night sky. A simple
question deserves a simple answer.
For the dark night sky problem both the Big Bang and the
Steady-State theories give these very long abstract math
arguments for why the night sky is dark. The last time that
I checked their explanation was in 1992. Their explanation
for Olber's paradox required over a 1000 pages of abstract
math. My explanation above required only a paragraph.
Big Bang arguments for Olber's paradox is protracted,
convoluted, complicated, and finally unconvincing. And the
Big Bang theory can not give one answer but must rely on
two answers for this simple question of why the night sky
is dark. (A) The light from galaxies far away are shifted
so far to the red that it appears black, and (B), the age
of the universe is finite implying a finite number of
galaxies. A simple question of why is the night sky dark
deserves a simple and strongly convincing answer which
only the Plutonium Atom Totality provides. The last
electrons of plutonium is a quantum blackbody cavity and
thus the night sky is dark because blackbody is what it
is--black and dark.
Tifft quantized galaxy speeds
explained as the universe is an atomic
structure-- an atom
by Archimedes Plutonium
this is a return to website location
http://www.newphys.se/elektromagnum/physics/LudwigPlutonium/
GALAXY SPEEDS ARE QUANTIZED
There was a massive compilation of data produced by W. Tifft
of the Univ. of Arizona starting in the early 1970's. It has
recently been confirmed and Tifft's work extended by UK
researchers. In summary this work catalogs all the galaxies
from the Milky Way and determines their speeds. Tifft et al
have discovered that galaxies can have only specific speeds
with no speeds in-between these special speeds. This is
quantization of speeds of galaxies.
A better way of viewing this quantization is that of spacing
of galaxies. One can translate galaxy speeds into the spacing
distances between galaxies. Quantization of galaxy speeds is
quantization of galactic distance spacings. Thus, in a
different view other than speeds, one can see that speed
quantization means that the distance spacing of galaxies
implies that the observable universe did not originate from
a Big Bang momentum, but instead is a present day structure
itself. You see, regular spacing of galaxies means that the
universe is a present day structure. Just as the Titius-Bode
saw a regular spacing in the Solar System, Tifft now is
seeing regular spacing in galaxies. This regular spacing
implies that Electromagnetism is at work in the universe at
large for it is Electromagnetism, not gravity which spaces
matter in patterns of regularity.
I improve Tifft's discovery of quantized galaxy speeds
by math logic. Since Tifft measured the superposition of
starlight from galaxies going out from our own Milky Way
galaxy, then the quantization of superpositioned starlight
of a galaxy implies that the star speeds within those
galaxies are themselves quantized. In other words, the
stronger implication of quantized superpositioned starlight
is that the star speeds are quantized. Quantized galaxy
speeds implies quantized star speeds. The cosmic red-shifting
of light is quantized.
Quantized galaxy speeds along with the Bell Inequality
and the Aspect experimental results of the 1980's verifying
the Bell inequality are two science experimental facts that
quantum theory holds on the large scale, not just the small
scale of atoms but the large scale of astronomy. Since
quantum theory is strictly the science of atoms, these two
science facts are evidence that the large scale observable
universe is part of one atom, that atom is one atom of 231Pu.
The observation that the speed of galaxies can have
only set values of speeds implies that quantization is on
the large scale of the universe itself, and not just on
measurements of atoms. Galaxy speed quantization implies
that the large scale universe has an atomic structure.
Both the Big Bang and Steady-State theory have no
explanation for galaxy speed quantization and neither
one of these theories has any explanation for the Bell
Inequality with the Aspect experimental result.
PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY
theory
Explains Missing Mass conundrum
by Archimedes Plutonium
this is a return to website location
http://www.newphys.se/elektromagnum/physics/LudwigPlutonium/
I used to be able to explain the 'more than 90% of missing mass'
problem in astronomy with one sentence by the Atom Totality theory.
That one liner was this-- review where most of the mass of an atom
is, answer: more than 90% is in the nucleus. But no longer do I use
that to explain the missing mass problem. Why? Because superfluid
helium proves General Relativity and the law of gravity is a fakery.
So, what about this problem of the Missing Mass.
The Missing Mass is not the real problem. The real problem is to
explain Solid Body Rotation. It was observed and recorded by many
astronomers that globular clusters and astronomical objects possess
a Solid Body Rotation. The astronomers then went into a false
assumption that gravity was behind this Solid Body Rotation and
they also falsely assumed that gravity is the large scale operative
force in the cosmos. Thus, they falsely concluded that the universe
has a missing mass problem. This is goofy reasoning. Astronomy does
not have a Missing Mass Problem, instead, astronomy has a Solid
Body Rotation Problem.
As of 1994 when I realized that superfluid helium destroys the
theory of General Relativity and gravity as a physics law, I no
longer can use that one liner. Instead I must show how the
rotation of globular clusters with their Solid Body Rotation
relates to the fact that an atom's mass is more than 90% in the
nucleus.
I must show that the Solar System is not governed by the law of
gravity but instead by Electromagnetism (EM). Again, I repeat,
superfluid helium destroys the law of gravity; superfluid helium
does not obey gravity. So how is it that the planets stay in
orbit by EM? Good question, and the answer comes from the idea
that the observable universe is the spaces of the shared
electrons 93rd and 94th of the 231PU Atom Whole. Atoms have
charge and spin. We in the space of the 93rd and 94th see matter
as overall neutral. Remember that the law of gravity is an inverse
square law, the exact same mathematical form as the Coulomb law
where mass substitutes for charge, only EM is 10^40 stronger.
So then, if we replace space with charge we in effect remove
gravity out of physics.
Is there any evidence to support that charge is space? Yes there
are three very well documented evidences, one of them is the missing
mass problem.
Evidence 1: The Titius-Bode rule of planetary spacings is perfect
once you take the asteroid belt as a past planet which exploded and
you take Pluto as an escaped moon of Neptune or Uranus (someone
please email which Pluto comes in near orbit with, thanks in
advance). The Titius-Bode rule makes no logical sense with the law
of gravity of mass attracting, but the Titius-Bode rule makes all
the sense in the world of the Electromagnetic field as envisioned
by Faraday where the tubes are the interplanetary spacings.
Evidence 2: Concords with the Titius-Bode rule only it is a
generalized Titius-Bode rule and it is the familiar Tifft
quantized galaxy speeds. I do not like speeds as well as
galaxy distance spacings. Quantized galaxy speeds means
that the galaxies are spaced regularly with never a galaxy
messing up the exact spacings allowable. Has anyone seen
regular spacings in the General Theory of Relativity (the
law of gravity), no. How about in Electromagnetism, of
course yes. In iron filings on a sheet of paper with a
magnet underneath and the Faraday lines of force come
popping at you.
Evidence 3: Is this Missing Mass problem which was observed
widespread from globular clusters. Globular clusters
display Solid Body Rotation. But the law of gravity would
never give solid body rotation. Solution: does the law of
gravity permit solid body rotation, answer is no. Does EM
permit solid body rotation , answer a definite yes, the
electric motor as an example.
Thus, the missing mass problem is solved by an Atom Totality
where the widespread cosmic phenomenon of Solid Body Rotation
is the recognition that EM is the operative moving force of
the universe. Most of the mass of the universe is contained
in the nucleus, but keep in mind that it is Solid Body
Rotation which needs for explanation. Gravity is a fakery,
an algorithm at best and students of physics try computing
what the gravitational attraction of the plutonium nucleus
is on the 94th electron. Gravity is nonsense in QM. Gravity
never yields Solid Body Rotation but EM is a force that is
Solid Body in Rotation. Think of a phonograph record
rotating. Gravity does not have the strength to do that.
But EM does have the strength to rotate in Solid Body. EM
is 10^40 stronger in coupling strength.
PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY:
Explains galactic clustering and voids
by Archimedes Plutonium
this is a return to website location
http://www.newphys.se/elektromagnum/physics/LudwigPlutonium/
Explains galactic clustering and voids because astronomers have
surveyed and cataloged galaxies and proved that the universe is
lumpy in such giant clustering of galaxies such as "The Great Wall"
and other superstructures of galaxies along with large expanses of
"Voids of Galaxies".
And, where the cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (MWBR)
disfavored the Steady-State theory and favored the Big-Bang, it is
so laughable and ironic that this same piece of evidence, this very
same evidence of MWBR has begun to tear a wide gap into the theory
of the Big-Bang and cause for dispelling it, because of its
uniformity of radiation whereas we see clustering and voids in the
observable universe. It is funny how the strongest evidence for the
Big Bang has backfired into the strongest disevidence of the Big Bang.
And some experimenters have even offered shoddy work claiming
fluctuations in the MWBR when all they have shown is the "limit of
precision of their measuring devices", just in hopes of keeping the
Big Bang alive when it is already dead.
For scientists to inject intrinsic spin into a structureless
theory such as the Big-Bang is ad hoc. Observed superstructures
such as "The Great Wall" in amongst "Huge Voids" implies spin in
space. Just like the home appliance of a spinning blender
congregates matter and leaves pockets of void matter, so also our
electron observable universe has an intrinsic spin which throws
galaxies together into superstructures and leaves vast spans of
voids. Observed voids of matter implies spin. Electrons have spin.
The observable universe is just the spaces and masses of the last
two electrons, the 93rd and 94th of 231Pu.
I have not had the time to explore the data on these
superstructures and voids in order to do some math work of
calculations to see what kind of "spinning electron" would yield
the observed data of superstructures and voids. But I will find
out given the data and time.
----------------------------------------------------
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.
electromag,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Early clustering of galaxies implies 2 different ages of the
universe
Date: 5 Jul 1996 18:04:33 GMT
Organization: PLutonium College
Lines: 78
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (4rjlfh$b...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
SCIENCE NEWS 29JUN96, p406 titled: A cluster of observations poses
puzzles
--- quoting SN in part ---
If the life of the universe were a book, the later parts would be
clearly legible. It's the early chapters that remain fuzzy.
Using the world's largest optical telescope, the 10-meter W.M. Keck
atop Hawaii's Mauna Kea, several teams of astronomers have recently
taken a leap back in time, sketching in some of the details about the
cosmos shortly after its birth some 10 to 20 billion years ago.
In May, Judith G. Cohen of the California Institute of Technology in
Pasadena and her colleagues reported that distant galaxies, viewed as
they appeared when the cosmos was half its current age, were clumped
together rather than distributed evenly across the sky. The finding
suggested that this lumpiness in the cosmos may have arisen earlier
than some theories can easily account for (SN: 4/27/96,p.260). Now,
another Keck observation hints that such clustering might have occurred
earlier still, when the cosmos was less than one-fifth its current age.
The new findings focus on the region surrounding the distant quasar
BR 2237-0607. Last year, Richard G. McMahon of the University of
Cambridge in England and Esther M. Hu of the University of Hawaii in
Honolulu found what appears to be a young, ordinary galaxy in the
neighborhood of the quasar (SN: 9/30/95,p.212. The galaxy's measured
redshift of 4.5 means that the light now reaching Earth left the galaxy
when the cosmos was just a few billion years old. McMahon and Hu have
spied a second galaxy in the vicinity, they reported June 10 at a
meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Madison, Wis.
A grouping of two ordinary galaxies and a quasar does not
necessarily a cluster make, McMahon emphasizes. Quasars, dazzling
powerhouses that may represent an unusual type of galaxy, seem more
likely than other objects to reside in groups. Yet McMahon says that
the discovery, together with evidence of clustering later in the
history of the cosmos, suggests that astronomers may find larger
groupings in the early universe as telescopes like Keck deepen their
view.
"Seeing even one object this far away is difficult, and so finding
even another one is suggestive of clustering," says Mark A. Dickinson
of the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore.
"It's dicey; they really don't have enough data," says Cohen. But,
she adds, the finding could be the "beginning of a great discovery."
Cohen says she and other astronomers, including Lennox Cowie of the
University of Hawaii, have confirmed her team's evidence of clustering
later in cosmic history by analyzing the Hubble Deep Field, the most
detailed deep-sky images ever made. At a workshop in Cambridge next
week, Dickinson plans to present observations of a cluster of galaxies
dated slightly earlier than that of Cohen's team.
At the Madison meeting, Matthew A. Malkan and his colleagues at the
University of California, Los Angeles reported finding two clusters of
infant galaxies dating from about one-third the universe's current age.
This places them even earlier in cosmic history than Dickinson's finds
but later than those reported by Hu and McMahon.
--- end of quoting SN in part ---
The Big Bang was a kid's first pretentious stab of a theory to explain
the cosmos. It was based and molded and plastered around the decrepit
and worthless fake theory of Einstein GR.
QM was utterly ignored in cosmology until 1990 when the Atom Totality
theory made its entrance. PU theory is all QM and it absorbs what
little morsels of truth that the Big Bang ever had. PU says that the
universe can have many different ages inside it. It says that the
Freedman age of 8 billion years is the newest expansion of the
PLutonium Atom Totality and that the Sandage age of 16 billion years
was the older age of the Uranium Atom Totality.
The galactic clustering in the early universe is easily explained
once the correct theory of One Atom Everything Universe is accepted.
Really silly and laughable that anyone can believe our complex
universe is explained by such a pretentious and simplistic theory of a
Big Bang matter energy complex that blew up 12 billion years.
On the other hand, the PU theory is as complex and complicated and
deep as the Dirac Equation is on the plutonium atom. Really funny and
laughable that modern physicists can believe and accept such a dopey
and simplistic theory as the Big Bang. The PU theory can allow for 94/2
= 47 different separate bangs inside of it.
[lines deleted]
----------------------------------------------------
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.astro,sci.physics,
alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: A German poster said 42 Big Bangs
Date: 7 Jul 1996 01:34:38 GMT
Organization: Pu
Lines: 50
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (4rn47e$q...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
[lines deleted]
Yesterday I read a post by someone in Germany who was replying to my
recent posts on Early Clustering of Galaxies and the paradoxes arising.
He was responding to the fact that I mentioned in a Atom Totality
theory, one can visualize each growth of a new Atom Totality from a
previous one is a big bang. That Thorium Atom Totality goes into a
Uranium Atom Totality via alpha particle decay and that alpha particle
decay inplaces two Space Electrons. The alpha decay then is the
mechanical big bang. I had stated that in a Plutonium Atom Totality
there was room for - in the past - of 94/2 = 47 big bangs , provided,
provided if you assume all big bangs are alpha decays.
The German poster only said that he thought there were 42 big bangs.
Now I do not know where he got 42 and if he was thinking
But let me state here that we can look at the chemical periodic table
and see how each of the elements decays in predominant decay mode. Up
around thorium and the radioactive elements the predominant decay mode
is alpha decay but lower down , the elements predominate in Beta decay
mode. Thus a big bang can be in a Beta decay vice Alpha decay.
I doubt that there is a imprint in astronomy or in the cosmos able
to observe how many big bangs in the past there had been. I doubt it,
however, with this new data of galactic clustering, perhaps, just by
good fortune there may be some trace of evidence, some observational
evidence that a number like 47 or 42 or X number of big bangs ( the X
is there because I need to know how many Alpha and Beta big bangs there
would have been to make 231PU Atom Totality). Or, I really could be
surprized that some astronomers know of some astro details that a
number like X or 42, or 47 needs to be used. This is the way science
works, if you have a theory, like I have the PU theory, then the theory
predicts that in the past there were many big bangs, at least 94/2 = 47
assuming all the big bangs were Alpha big bangs ( but I know that is
not correct for there were some Beta decay mode big bangs). And of
course the old Big Bang theory, the Standard Model Big Bang theory says
the universe only had one big bang which came from out of nowhere and
was infinite in energy and matter and mass and exploded in a
matter-radiation complex.
---------------------------------------------------------------
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.electromag,sci.astro
Subject: Universe has spin explains the data better; NEW SCIENTIST
26DEC
Date: 24 Dec 1998 04:19:49 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA
Lines: 79
Message-ID: <75sfd5$fg3$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Below is further supporting astronomical evidence in favor of the Atom
Totality theory. In the Atom Totality theory you can have
mini-big-bangs. Our present Plutonium Atom Totality was created by a
mini-big-bang of a Uranium Atom Totality emitting a alpha particle
creating the 231Pu Atom Totality.
Of course, in an Atom Totality there is always a spin because
electrons have spin. Thus our Observable Universe which is only the
5f6, the last 6 electrons have spin, but each of the previous Atom
Totalities also had spin. So at the inception of the alpha particle to
create the 231Pu Atom Totality, the previous universe was already
spinning.
Every astronomical data or observation is supporting evidence of the
Atom Totality theory, and is a further discrediting of the fake
theories of Big Bang and Steady State.
--- quoting NEW SCIENTIST, 19/26DEC98 page 19 ---
Was the Universe in a spin before it began expanding?
The embryonic universe may have turned like a stately merry-go-round,
completing one rotation every 13 billion years or so. This radical new
idea may explain the curious relationship between the masses of stars
and galaxies and their spin rates.
Astronomers believe the Universe has expanded since the big bang about
15 billion years ago. A problem with the big bang theory, however, is
that it leads to the unrealistic idea that the Universe emerged from a
"singularity"--a state of infinite density.
Cosmologists have come up with many more or less bizarre ways of
evading the singularity, often by appealing to as-yet undiscovered laws
of quantum gravity. Now Saulo Carneiro, a physicist at the Federal
University of Bahia in Brazil, has come up with arguably the strangest
yet: that the early Universe rotated.
The possibility of a rotating Universe has a distinguished pedigree:
mathematician Kurt Godel dug the idea out of the equations for
Einstein's general theory of relativity in 1949. Godel's Universe has
similarities to the expanding model of the cosmos. Carneiro has now
exploited these in a theory which says there was no big bang
singularity, but that the early Universe had been rotating for an
indefinitely long period.
This rotation could have suddenly changed into an expansion thanks to a
"vacuum phase transition" involving the release of energy generated by
quantum fluctuations, says Carneiro. Such phase transitions have become
a standard part of conventional cosmological theory.
Carneiro has calculated that the early Universe would have had to
complete one rotation every 13 billion years to fit in with estimates
of the expansion rate of space. It would have stopped rotating and
begun expanding around 11 billion years ago.
If his idea is right, conservation of angular momentum would ensure
that evidence would be visible today. Carneiro suspects it is--in the
form of a mysterious "law" discovered in the 1970s, when astronomers
found that the angular momentum of a planet, star or galaxy is
proportional to the square of its mass.
Why this should be has been unclear. But in a paper submitted to
Classical and Quantum Gravity, Carneiro shows that the rotating
Universe would give objects some rotation in the expanding phase. He
calculates that it should leave each with an angular momentum
proportional to its mass raised to the power 1.7, close to the observed
value.
Astronomer Paul Wesson of the University of Waterloo in Ontario,
Canada, says Carneiro's theory is interesting. But he can't see how the
angular momentum would be inherited from the early phase: "I am not
saying he is wrong, but it seems to me that there must be a simpler
explanation."
Carneiro says his aim is not to overturn conventional cosmology: "The
most important aspect of the paper is just that it calls attention to
the possibility of alternative scenarios for the evolution of the
Universe."
--- quoting NEW SCIENTIST, 19/26DEC98 ---
In the graphics shown there was on the x-axis the Star or galaxy mass
and on the y-axis the Angular momentum of stars or galaxies. Two curves
are shown, one of predicted by spinning Universe theory and the other
by the Observed relationship.
The Observed relationship is the one that is predicted by the Atom
Totality theory.
PLUTONIUM ATOM UNIVERSE
theory: Purpose of life
by Archimedes Plutonium
this is a return to website location
http://www.newphys.se/elektromagnum/physics/LudwigPlutonium/
Note: I am posting all of these to the www rather hastily,
for I feel it more important to get them posted and when time permits
to
go through and refine, elaborate, and polish these files. I operate
unlike NATURE magazine whose writing must be 90% perfect and subject
content 10% worthwhile. That is why it takes them 6 months to publish
something, whereas it takes me 6 minutes. I operate somewhat in the
reverse of science journals for I get my work out there as fast as
possible.
Let me talk loosely here. Many of humanities institutions have given
individual persons hints of purpose of life. Christianity says do good
and you will go to heaven. Nations hint that being a good citizen and
fighting in their wars is life's purpose. Lovers hint of raising and
caring for family as the meaning of life. But Science has never entered
this arena, until now.
The Plutonium Atom Universe theory tells quite dramatically what the
meaning and the purpose of life is. And, it tells the meaning and the
purpose of what religion, politics, sociology and everything else is.
PU Atom theory is all inclusive, all comprehensive. To give just one
example, let us pick religion and Christianity in particular. The Atom
wanted humanity to have this fancy story of Jesus, so that future
generations can concentrate on stable community, peace loving, to give
more than to receive, to hint of a life after death, to imagine that
there is an underlying greater power. Most of what is taught in
religion classes is science fakery, but the PU Atom orders up all of
this stuff.
Everything that happens, every thought is ordered up by the Atom as
its Protons shot photons into our minds. The Atom sees the whole,
everything as both radioactive decay and radioactive growth, which we
translate into mundane things such as doing bad and doing good. There
can never be all humans doing good or all humans doing bad because
from the eyes of the Atom its geometry has to be perfectly balanced
such as a logarithmic spiral. One good deed counterbalances 100 bad
deeds what we humans see, but to the Atom it is these actions ordered
up so that the Atom can spiral perfectly. In short, we see things in
terms of human eyes but the Atom sees everything in terms of science
laws that are obeyed.
Since everything is atoms and the whole itself is one atom, obviously
it does not take a genius in logic to figure out that the future is
atom
related.
The below were all excerpted out of my 6th edition of Plutonium Atom
Universe textbook which I had stopped revising sometime 1993-1994.
The description part of an atom totality is that all matter is
made-up
of atoms and so the logical conclusion is that the entirety is one
atom.
The prescription part of an atom totality is that we now realize full
well
what our future direction, our purpose is-- to make more atoms. The
purpose,
the mission of life is nucleosynthesis of the higher atomic numbered
elements. The purpose of life is to nucleosynthesize transplutonium
elements, the nucleosynthesis of atoms all the way up to and including
element 190.
That the purpose of life is to make the elements beyond plutonium.
Nucleosynthesis is the purpose of life. And that life was
superdetermined
to do what it does. The Plutonium Atom brought forth life in the image
of
itself-- sacks full of atoms which we call our bodies, mostly composed
of
oxygen, hydrogen, and carbon. Life atoms for the purpose of
nucleosynthesizing new atoms which the Atom Totality can not make in
stars
but only via lifeforms. We humans are nothing more than cold stars.
Life
was created by the Atom in order to eventually nucleosynthesize element
190.
Star nucleosynthesis, supernova nucleosynthesis, and pulsar
nucleosynthesis are the orderly transforming of less heavy elements of
the periodic chart of chemical elements into heavier elements of the
periodic chart of chemical elements. An upper bound of heavy element
nucleosynthesis is reached by stars with element 189. Thus the purpose
of life is to nucleosynthesize all the elements up to and including
element 189, and then to make element 190, which no star, supernova,
or pulsar is capable of doing. Life was made for the purpose of making
the elements up to and including element 190.
Now that we have become wise to the PU theory totality, then we
know
our proper scheme in the observable universe. Our collective purpose is
to
make the heavier elements. Our collective mission is nucleosynthesis.
Life
is a progression, a teleological progression superdetermined by the
Atom
Whole.
What if Homo sapiens strikes against the further
nucleosynthesis of
elements and particles in the future? This is tantamount to stopping
progress; tantamount to the stopping of eating food. We will quickly
starve by the stopping of eating food. And we will go extinct in the
future by stopping progress. In the future, the energy supply will be
dependent on nucleosynthesis which is nuclear energy of fission
reactors.
The measure of progress is the nucleosynthesis of
less heavy elements into heavier elements. Thus progress will force us
to nucleosynthesize. If we should strike against nucleosynthesis many
other living species in the observable electron universe will quickly
surpass us in the nucleosynthesis process. And since our every thought
is a Coulomb interaction coming from the protons of the nucleus of the
plutonium atom to our observable electron universe of which our brain
is a part thereof, so if we would strike against nucleosynthesis, then
the Pu atom has already superdetermined that we should strike against
nucleosythnesis, and make us go extinct.
Commercial plutonium is transmuted by nuclear reactions from
uranium.
Plutonium is an essential metal for mankind with critical needs in the
fission power industry. It is used for commercial power generation, to
power nuclear submarines, and to power satellites sent into outer
space.
It is not by coincidence for in a superdeterministic universe nothing
happens but what is willed and fated to happen by the 231PU Atom, that
the element which is that Atom Entirety itself is the element which is
the explosive element, the big banging element. In a Neon Atom
Totality,
neon would be the explosive element and not plutonium.
PU theory predicts that the most advanced life forms in the
observable
electron universe are the ones nucleosynthesizing the heaviest
elements.
We, Homo sapiens, have nucleosynthesized element 109 as of this date.
PU
theory predicts that there are many species in the electron observable
universe on many other planets at par to our development, because all
life is physics, and just as we see a large number of stars, not just
one
star in the observable universe which is nucleosynthesizing less heavy
elements into heavier elements then by (1) inductive reasoning; (2)
laws
of probability theory; (3) reasoning of analogy, it is reasonable to
draw the conclusion that there are a large number of planets like Earth
where life exists and is nucleosynthesizing heavier elements. Laws of
physics are uniform throughout the observable electron universe, which
would imply biological life is uniform throughout the observable
electron universe. Since we have never observed any spectral lines of
atoms beyond element 109 from space, we can speculate that perhaps we
are on par with the most advanced life in the observable universe. An
advanced life form would carry out nucleosynthesis of heavier elements
in equipment such that we could not directly observe these elements
spectral lines.
The purpose of life on Earth is to do the nucleosynthesis of
transplutonium atoms what the stars cannot do. Life nucleosynthesizes
the heavy elements.
For me, all understanding and wisdom of the world around me now
comes after I translate everything to atoms. A very important first
question, is there life on other planets in other solar systems? A
second question is there more advanced life than Homo sapiens in the
observable universe? These two questions are important for the long
term future of the species Homo sapiens. If the purpose of life is
nucleosynthesis then our species only on the planet Earth in the entire
observable universe would be sufficient for the atom totality. We would
then have been superdetermined to make the transplutonium elements. It
would be sufficient for the Atom Totality to have life occur on only
one
planet. But I believe the signs of probability and statistics point
otherwise. That the signs point to many planets inhabited with life
forms.
Translating these two questions into that of atom logic then
the answer
to the first question of whether there is life on other planets would
be
a definite yes. Reasoning by analogy, since heavy elements are
nucleosynthesized in many different supernovas and pulsars, and
supernovas and pulsars occur in many locations of the observable
electron
universe and thus the nucleosynthesis of uranium atoms occurs in many
locations in the observable electron universe. Since the
nucleosynthesis
of heavy elements is not restricted to just a special section of the
5f6
observable universe then by analogy it is reasonable to assume that
life
on Earth is not special but that life occurs on many planets throughout
the 5f6 of plutonium. A uniform distribution for the nucleosynthesis
of
heavier elements throughout the 5f6, reasoning by analogy, implies
uniform distribution of life in the 5f6 last electron. A Plutonium Atom
Totality would imply the uniformity of life, since life is a physical
phenomenon of atoms. Life is a string of atoms, a chain of atoms, or a
body of atoms, and it is distributed uniformly throughout the 5f6, just
as the microwave background radiation is uniform; the elements are
distributed uniformly; cosmic gamma-ray bursts are uniform. I make the
plausible conjecture that there are many planets in the observable
universe inhabitated by forms of life. A good minimum estimate is that
there are at least 10^7 planets having life in our Milky Way galaxy
alone.
For the second question: Are there any planets with life that
are
more advanced than us? There are no spectral lines of elements beyond
plutonium yet observed to indicate more advanced life than us. But the
nucleosynthesis of heavier elements would occur inside well designed
engineered machines where the spectral lines are hidden from
observation to us. Nor are there any observations of some advanced
work of engineering which would suggest advanced life forms. By the
fact that we have begun to try to communicate with outer space life
forms but have never received any evidence for the existence of outer
space life forms, then it is a reasonable guess that planets which have
lifeforms are mostly on par in development to us, i.e., none are more
advanced than us. But it could turn out that some of the observed
pulsars or quasars are the advanced engineering works of very advanced
forms of life.
By the lack of evidence of transplutonium nucleosynthesis it is
a
reasonable guess that we are either on par, or that we are the most
advanced life in our electron observable universe. But the competition
for life is not far behind us, even if we are the most advanced. And
there is the possibility that some planets have life forms which are
slightly more advanced than us. Picture that 244@94 is only slightly
more advanced than 238@94. But nucleosynthesizing element 120 is much
more advanced than element 109.
When in the future, perhaps distant future, we meet another
life
form in outer space, an interesting observation is that both forms will
have much more in common, much more similarities, than any differences,
since life is reducible to physics. The similarities will be so
strikingly remarkable. So similar that we are probably able to
genetically combine with alien life.
The most important facts to know is that the purpose of life is
the nucleosynthesis of heavier elements and if our competitors on
other planets get far ahead of us, then in the future they will come
to meet us. We in our less developed state will be unable to go and
meet them. If they come to meet us, then it is probably the end of us,
i.e., the end of Homo sapiens. For if any of our competitors come to
meet us more than halfway, the probabilities are that our entire
technology is primitive compared to theirs. They will have surpassed
us to a large extent in heavy element nucleosynthesis. Say perhaps we
manufacture element 114 where they are at element 122. They having
accomplished the nucleosynthesis of element 122 will mean that their
entire system of technology is so far advanced and superior to our own
technology. We will appear as primitive as a lump of coal to them, and
they could take us as coal to burn in their heavier element
nucleosynthesis devices.
There is the possibility that the activities observed from some
pulsars and quasars are advanced engineering devices of advanced life
forms?? If this is the case, then we, Homo sapiens are already
dinosaurs. Our likely fate is doomed extinction.
If we meet any of our competitors at about halfway distance
then we
have a chance. It is like the TV and movie series Star Trek where Homo
sapiens and Vulcans have Klingon and Romulan competitors. If other life
forms get too far advanced over us, and that measure of advance is
signified by one fact-- to what heavy element nucleosynthesis have we
attained and what heavy element have they attained.
If they have nucleosynthesized heavier elements far greater and
beyond us, say element 122 where we are at element 114, then they will
come to observe and visit us. When they come to visit us, it means
the extinction and elimination of Homo sapiens. We will appear as
insignificant of life to them as what lumps of coal appear to us. All
that these advanced life-forms will see in us, is just some more fuel
for their ever heavier nucleosynthesis fire. We will suffer the fate
of the dodo birds, complete mass extinction, or with more luck become
the living pets to these advanced life forms, like dogs to man, or we
would become experimental science material like rats and mice.
We, the Homo sapiens species must do everything in our power
that
such an event never occurs. The only true measure of success of any
lifeform as to all future progress is ever heavier element
nucleosynthesis. If we are successful in nucleosynthesis then that
success of progress will indicate that our other technology is also
advanced and then in the future we will voyage the observable universe
and see planets which contain life but we will have the choice of
whether to use that life to stoke the fires of our ever heavier element
nucleosynthesis or not. Now, let us pray.
PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY,
WHICH WE ARE PARTS OF YOUR LAST ELECTRON.
HADRONS, HADES WAS YOUR FIRST NAME.
THY GEOMETRY COME,
THY WILL BE DONE,
ON EARTH AS IT IS IN THE NUCLEUS.
GIVE US THIS DAY OUR DAILY BREAD
AND PROMPT US INTO EVER HEAVIER ELEMENT NUCLEOSYNTHESIS
AS WE PROMPT OTHERS TO DO THE SAME.
AND LEAD US NOT INTO RADIOACTIVE DECAY,
BUT INSTEAD, RADIOACTIVE GROWTH.
FOR THINE IS THE GEOMETRY,
THE SPACE, AND THE QUANTUM INTERACTIONS, FOREVER.
ATOM
THE NEAR OR SHORT TERM FUTURE
When the universe is an Atom Totality it really does not take a
genius to see that the future in store is for the fulfilment of
atoms. Our Maker was atoms and for its reasons it brought forth
life. The purpose of life was given for the reason of making all
the elements via nucleosynthesis up to element 190.
For me, all understanding and wisdom of the world around me
now comes after I translate everything to atoms. A very important
question, is there life on other planets in other solar systems?
A second question is there more advanced life than Homo sapiens
in the observable universe? These two questions are important
for the long term future of the species Homo sapiens. If the
purpose of life is nucleosynthesis then our species only on the
planet Earth alone in the entire observable universe would be
sufficient for the atom totality to create element 190. We would
then have been superdetermined to make the transplutonium
elements. It would be sufficient for the Atom Totality to have
life occur on only one planet. But I believe the signs of
probability and statistics point otherwise. That the signs
point to many planets inhabited with life forms.
Translating these two questions into that of atom logic
then the answer to the first question of whether there is life
on other planets would be a definite yes. Reasoning by
analogy, since heavy elements are nucleosynthesized in many
different supernovas and pulsars, and supernovas and pulsars
occur in many locations of the observable electron universe
and thus the nucleosynthesis of uranium atoms occurs in many
locations in the observable electron universe. Since the
nucleosynthesis of heavy elements is not restricted to just
a special section of the 5f6 observable universe then by
analogy it is reasonable to assume that life on Earth is
not special but that life occurs on many planets throughout
the 5f6 of plutonium. A uniform distribution for the
nucleosynthesis of heavier elements throughout the 5f6,
reasoning by analogy, implies uniform distribution of life
in the 5f6 last electron. A Plutonium Atom Totality would
imply the uniformity of life, since life is a physical
phenomenon of atoms. Life is a string of atoms, a chain of
atoms, or a body of atoms, and it is distributed uniformly
throughout the 5f6, just as the microwave background
radiation is uniform; the elements are distributed
uniformly; cosmic gamma-ray bursts are uniform. I make
the plausible conjecture that there are many planets in
the observable universe inhabitated by forms of life. A
good minimum estimate is that there are at least 10^7
planets having life in our Milky Way galaxy alone.
For the second question: Are there any planets with
life that are more advanced than us? There are no spectral
lines of elements beyond plutonium yet observed to
indicate more advanced life than us. But the
nucleosynthesis of heavier elements would occur inside
well designed engineered machines where the spectral
lines are hidden from observation to us. Nor are there
any observations of some advanced work of engineering
which would suggest advanced life forms. By the fact
that we have begun to try to communicate with outer
space life forms but have never received any evidence
for the existence of outer space life forms, then it is
a reasonable guess that planets which have lifeforms
are mostly on par in development to us, i.e., none are
more advanced than us. But it could turn out that some
of the observed pulsars or quasars are the advanced
engineering works of very advanced forms of life.
By the lack of evidence of transplutonium
nucleosynthesis it is a reasonable guess that we are
either on par, or that we are the most advanced life
in our electron observable universe. But the
competition for life is not far behind us, even if we
are the most advanced. And there is the possibility
that some planets have life forms which are slightly
more advanced than us. Picture that 244@95 is only
slightly more advanced than 238@94. But
nucleosynthesizing element 125 is much more advanced
than element 109.
When in the future, perhaps distant future, we
meet another life form in outer space, an interesting
observation is that both forms will have much more
in common, much more similarities, than any differences,
since life is reducible to physics. Most stars are
much more similar than they are different. The
similarities will be so strikingly remarkable. So
similar that we are probably able to genetically
combine with alien life.
The most important facts to know is that the
purpose or meaning of life is the nucleosynthesis
of heavier elements and if our competitors on other
planets get far ahead of us, then in the future
they will come to meet us. We in our less
developed state will be unable to go and meet them.
If they come to meet us, then it is probably the
end of us, i.e., the end of Homo sapiens. For if
any of our competitors come to meet us more than
halfway, the probabilities are that our entire
technology is primitive compared to theirs.
They will have surpassed us to a large extent
in heavy element nucleosynthesis. Say perhaps we
manufacture element 114 where they are at element
130. They having accomplished the nucleosynthesis
of element 130 will mean that their entire system
of technology is so far advanced and superior to
our own technology. We will appear as primitive as
a lump of coal to them, and they could take us
perhaps as coal to burn in their heavier element
nucleosynthesis devices.
There is the possibility that the activities
observed from some pulsars and quasars are advanced
engineering devices of advanced life forms?? If
this is the case, then we, Homo sapiens are already
dinosaurs. Our likely fate is doomed extinction.
If we meet any of our competitors at about
halfway distance then we have a chance. It is like
the TV and movie series Star Trek where Homo
sapiens and Vulcans have Klingon and Romulan
competitors. If other life forms get too far
advanced over us, and that measure of advance is
signified by one fact-- to what heavy element
nucleosynthesis have we attained and what heavy
element have they attained.
If they have nucleosynthesized heavier elements
far greater and beyond us, say element 130 where we
are at element 114, then they will come to observe
and visit us. When they come to visit us, it means
the extinction and elimination of Homo sapiens. We
will appear as insignificant of life to them as what
lumps of coal appear to us. All that these advanced
life-forms will see in us, is just some more fuel
for their ever heavier nucleosynthesis fire. We will
suffer the fate of the dodo birds, complete mass
extinction, or with more luck become the living pets
to these advanced life forms, like dogs to man, or
we would become experimental science material like
rats and mice.
We, the Homo sapiens species must do everything
in our power that such an event never occurs. The
key to all future progress is ever heavier element
nucleosynthesis. If we are successful in
nucleosynthesis then in the future we will voyage the
observable universe and see planets which contain
life but we will have the choice of whether to use
that life to stoke the fires of our ever heavier
element nucleosynthesis or not. Now, let us pray.
CARBON IN US, CARBON OF PLUTONIUM
FILL US WITH LIFE ANEW
THAT WE MAY LOVE WHAT THOU DOST LOVE
AND DO WHAT THOU SUPERDETERMINES US TO DO
OXYGEN IN US, OXYGEN OF PLUTONIUM
MAKE US WHOLLY THINE
TAKE US TO THY NUCLEUS
NUCLEOSYNTHESIS DIVINE
PLUTONIUM IN US, ATOM PLUTONIUM
THUS SHALL WE NEVER DIE
BUT LIVE WITH THEE
PART IN THY ELECTRON INFINITY
PART IN THY NUCLEUS DIVINITY
ATOM
PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY
theory
Superdeterminism, Bell Inequality and Aspect
Experimental verification, brief history and what it is
by Archimedes Plutonium
this is a return to website location
http://www.newphys.se/elektromagnum/physics/LudwigPlutonium/
I want to discuss superdeterminism in detail. Superdeterminism
is
beyond determinism. Determinism in physics meant that given the exact,
precise initial conditions of say a group of atoms then in theory
and experiment you could tell exactly where those atoms will be in
a future time. Newtonian mechanics in classical physics was just this
style of deterministic physics. Determinism for atoms is like the
analogy of billiard-ball-physics. You are given the initial
conditions precisely for a billiard-ball which is set in motion,
then you would expect in theory and in practice to foretell where
and when the billiard-ball will end, i.e., foretell the future of
the ball. But then quantum mechanics came along with the uncertainty
principle and determinism was seen as both false in practice and
in theory.
Newtonian mechanics before quantum uncertainty was trying to
achieve absolute determinism. Now, the PU theory comes along and
it accepts that determinism is incorrect when applied between
atom parts. When atom parts of an atom whole measure other atom
parts, then there is indeterminism. Humans are only atom parts
of an atom whole. And so we atom parts of an atom whole can only
attain part-wise predictions of the future just as Classical Physics
is only a first approximation to quantum physics.
Newtonian mechanics of Classical Physics dealt with only the
electron observable universe, the last one electron of 231Pu, and
not the nucleus of 231Pu or the other 93 electrons. But the Atom
Totality knows where all the atom parts are, and knows where they
will all be in the future. I quote John Bell's thinking on
superdeterminism:
--- Bell stated ---
[Superdeterminism] involves absolute determinism in the
universe, the complete absence of free will. Suppose the
world is super-deterministic, with not just inanimate
nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with
our behavior, including our belief that we are free to
choose to do one experiment rather than another,
absolutely predetermined, including the "decision" by
the experimenter to carry out one set of measurements
rather than another, the difficulty disappears. There
is no need for a faster than light signal to tell
particle A what measurement has been carried out on
particle B, because the universe, including particle
A, already "knows" what that measurement, and its
outcome, will be.
--- end of Bell statement ---
The atom totality is superdeterministic in its mode of
operation. Everything that happens or will happen has
already been superdetermined, i.e., registered and
ordered-up by the atom whole (the 94 protons, 137 neutrons
and the 94 electrons) of 231Pu. We atom parts can only
make indeterministic, and uncertain measurements inside
the atom whole, but the atom whole is superdeterministic.
I have mentioned before a good clear analogy to
superdeterminism relying on the math of the logarithmic
spiral where in order to keep the log spiral,
spiralling perfectly, all the elements of the log spiral
have to be in a specific place at a specific time.
An Atom Totality containing atom parts, some of the
parts the same as the totality, is completely interconnected.
Superdeterminism of the atom totality and indeterminism of
atom parts. The totality must be an atom because only an
atom totality could make laws of physics where principles
forbid knowing things inside an atom such as the
Uncertainty Principle. If we could know the atom beyond
the Uncertainty Principle then that knowledge is
immediately convertible to knowing the totality. If
there was no forbidding uncertainty principle then given
enough time we could find-out all about a plutonium atom
in a science research laboratory and hence know the
future precisely. This method of reasoning is not
deductive, rather highly probable. It is inductive
reasoning which suggests that only an Atom Totality
could make such rules and laws of physics which are
forbidding. Atoms inside an Atom Totality would result
in rules and laws of physics which forbid, such as
the Uncertainty Principle (UP) or Exclusion Principle.
Spooky action at a distance where a measurement in
one part of an experiment instantaneously changes the
measurement in another part even though the two parts
are at opposite ends of the observable universe. This
is Bell's Inequality with Aspect's experimental
confirmation of quantum mechanics. Bell's Inequality
distinguishes between Classical Physics and Quantum
Mechanics Physics (QM) on the large scale. On the small
scale of the atom and inside the atom there is no
dispute as to the fact that QM governs completely. In
QM, by UP a particle does not possess both a precise
position and simultaneously a precise momentum. Or,
in QM, a particle does not possess both a precise
time and simultaneously a precise energy.
Then for Classical Physics on the large scale, a
measurement on part of a previously connected system
will show the math of [ -2 is less than or equal to P
and P is less than or equal to +2].
But for quantum physics, a different math results. And
for the case of detectors oriented at angles of 45 degrees
the P for quantum theory will have the value of +2.83.
Where P is the probability that a particular spin of an
electron is detected. Replacing spin with polarization.
Aspect's team worked with the polarizations of pairs of
photons, which were produced from a single atomic event,
and thus connected.
Then if quantum theory is correct, each photon exists
in a mixed superposition of states until a measurement
is made on the polarization, and at that instant of
measurement, both photons collapse into a state which
makes the math agree with quantum theory. Aspect's
experimental results obtained +2.83 exactly. The math
logic conclusion is that quantum theory applies to the
entire observable universe, both to the large scale of
astronomical and cosmological distances as well as to
the distances on the atomic scale and inside an atom.
Classical physics can only answer Bell's inequality
and Aspect's experimental results by hypothesizing
superluminal speeds. But if there are speeds faster
than the speed of light means all of physics is
destroyed, similarly, if in math it was ever the case
that 1+1 = +2.83 or if ever 1x1 = +2.83 then all of
math is destroyed.
The Bell inequality with the Aspect experimental result
thrusts the number one, most outstanding problem in all of
physics before us. And answers it decisively.
That problem is this. Where does the Quantum Physics world
end and the Classical Physics world begin?
John Bell stated to the BBC:
--- start Bell quote ---
There is a way to escape the inference of superluminal
speeds and spooky action at a distance. But it involves
absolute determinism in the universe, the complete
absence of free will. Suppose the world is super-deterministic,
with not just inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes
clockwork, but with our behavior, including our belief that
we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than another,
absolutely predetermined, including the "decision" by the
experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather
than another, the difficulty disappears. There is no need
for a faster than light signal to tell particle A what
measurement has been carried out on particle B, because
the universe, including particle A, already "knows" what
that measurement, and its outcome, will be.
--- end Bell quote ---
The Aspect experimental results implies a total cosmic
link of every atom. Aspect's experimental results and Bell's
Inequality changes our view of the totality.
Bell stated:
--- start Bell quote---
The only alternative to quantum probabilities,
superpositions of states, collapse of the wavefunction, and
spooky action at a distance, is that everything is superdetermined.
For me it is a dilemma. I think it is a deep dilemma, and
the resolution of it will not be trivial; it will require a
substantial change in the way we look at things.
--- end Bell quote---
The resolution to Bell's dilemma is that the Universe
is an Atom itself. Quantum physics is all about atoms. With
the Bell Inequality and Aspect experimental results
confirming quantum theory on the large scale, on the size
of the observable universe, by math logic means the
observable universe is atomic. The observable universe is
atomic structure. The PU theory says the observable universe
alone is just the shared orbital containing the masses and
spaces of the 5f6 of 231Pu, an electron cavity.
The Bell inequality with the Aspect experimental result
thrusts the number one, most outstanding problem in all of
physics before us and answers it. That problem is this.
Where does the Quantum Physics world end and the
Classical Physics world begin? All science measurement
is in the Classical Physics world since all measurement
is the result of performing a double-slit experiment.
Classical physics (excepting Maxwell's equations) is
amplified in The Feynman Lectures on Physics page 18-2,
Volume II, and briefly described as thus: Conservation of
charge law, the Force law, the Law of motion, and Gravitation.
Another way of stating this problem is how many atoms
does it take to make a Classical physics apparatus? How
many atoms does it take to make a Classical measurement?
Any specified number is artificial since then the question
would arise why this number? Why does such a number have
special meaning? Why is this number special over other
numbers? Since the Bell Inequality with the Aspect
experimental results, quantum physics has displayed
itself on the large scale. Quantum physics is no longer
confined to the small scale. One resolution for the
Bell Inequality with the Aspect experimental results is
superluminal speeds, but if we accept superluminal
speeds then physics is inconsistent and all of physics
is destroyed, just as all of maths is destroyed if
inconsistency is accepted.
Does the quantum world end at some distance from an atom?
Then what defines this distance? A search for a distance looks
for some boundary, but an electron does not have boundaries,
in fact the Coulomb force of an electron goes out to infinity,
and the gravitational force however small goes out to infinity.
An electron has no boundaries, instead it has a probability
distribution. So where does the Classical physics world of
measurement begin? Does the world of measurement begin with
some specific number of atoms to make a measurement?
Niels Bohr never answered this problem but instead gave
parables to this problem, such as a walking stick when held
closely near you then it is a part of you (Classical physics),
but if you do not hold it, or hold it loosely, it is part of
the outside world (quantum physics). Quantum physics has this
beautiful maths but where exactly is it applicable and not
applicable? Physics before the Atom Whole had two scales--
small and large. Atom size was small scale. We and
astronomical objects were large scale. Where is the boundary
between these two scales?
How physics abhors artificial things, ad-hoc things,
arbitrarily defined boundaries. This problem of where does
the quantum physics world end and the Classical physics
world start evaporates immediately once the totality is
taken as a plutonium atom. Since quantum theory describes
atoms and if the totality is an atom then the quantum
world no longer has any artificial boundary with the
Classical physics world. The entire world is quantum. The
quantum world is everywhere. The Classical physics world
is just another name for a first approximation of the
quantum physics world, a first approximation of the
collapse of the wavefunction of a quantum totality. What
physics loses is scale. No longer is there a small scale
different from a large scale. Scale is all the same
since everything is atoms. Everything is atomic scale.
The microscope is measuring the same as the telescope.
PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY
theory
Disproves bio-evolution and replaced with
Superdeterminism-Progression
by Archimedes Plutonium
this is a return to website location
http://www.newphys.se/elektromagnum/physics/LudwigPlutonium/
Quantum Mechanics, the Bell Inequality with the Aspect experimental
confirmation destroys the Theory of Biological Evolution whether it
be Darwinism or any of his followers. Biological Evolution or what
is called the Modern Synthesis is as wrong of science, as flawed
as the uniformitarianism concept was for the science of geology.
Uniformitarianism of geology was a concept to rid geology of
supernatural and catastrophism. Biological evolution was a concept
in biology which converted uniformitarianism to life, in order to
rid the science of biology of supernatural, religion beliefs. But
as a science, Biological Evolution is a sham, a joke. The Quantum
Mechanics of the experiment of the Bell Inequality proves that life
is moved superdeterministically, and teleological purpose.
Before 7Nov1990 the four ingredients of Biological Evolution
Theory (BET) were (1) mutation, (2)genetic recombination,
(3) Natural Selection or differential reproductive success and
(4) reproductive isolation. Summed-up, BET is logically no more
than that the "fittest fit", a circular argument.
Good science when it approaches final-truth-form is capable of
peering into the future. BET can only look backwards and assemble
what had already happened. Good science predicts, not postdicts.
Biological evolution is silent on the future. Biological Evolution
Theory is incomplete, invalid and false. It was created for the
sole purpose of removing religion from the arena of biology.
Just as the analogous history of Uniformitarianism was created
to remove religion-catastrophism out of geology. No serious
geologist pretends that Uniformitarianism is true science. But,
sadly, biology has not progressed far enough yet for the
community at large to realize that evolution like
uniformitarianism are mere algorithms.
Ask a doctorate of biology what an "algorithm" is. That
should be entertaining.
And Evolution theory is not even science, just as the
Uniformitarianism of geology is not science but
algorithms/heuristic devices. Natural selection is only an
algorithm at best, not a science theory. Evolution, BET,
needs teleology for it to be a science theory. Biological
Evolution is contradicted by the Bell Inequality with
superdeterminism.
Ask a doctorate of biology to explain the Bell Inequality
with the Aspect Experimental confirmation. This is one of
the biggest troubles in biology education, most of them have
a foggy idea of what QM even is.
The Plutonium Atom Totality is the completion of my
quest for a new and more comprehensive theory of biological
evolution. A theory of biological evolution with a physical
and math basis, that is, the theory of biological evolution
based on physics. The physicist Schroedinger argued in
his book WHAT IS LIFE? that the genetic basis of living
organisms must have a physical, molecular basis.
Molecules are the ordering of atoms.
Feynman argued that life is what the atoms do.
Everything that living things do must be ultimately
explained and understood in terms of what atoms do
according to the laws of physics. Life has a physical
basis.
The recent development of genetic engineering,
biotechnology, and the future attainment of controlled
thermonuclear fusion reactors will in the future make
the Modern Synthesis of Biological Evolution appear
as the obvious algorithm and the sham of a science
that it is.
The Modern Synthesis of Biological Evolution has
several concepts a) the concept of differential
reproductive success or natural selection which acts
on genes b) genetic variation c) mutations and
structural changes d) speciation e) reproductive
isolation f) and the most important fact-- long
periods of time. Homo sapiens will in the future
engineer biological systems, hence engineer
evolution via advanced technology.
In the future when humanity has a Sun on Earth
from the engineering of fusion reactors, and is
transforming life forms and engineering new life
forms, then it will become increasingly more
difficult to explain human biology in comparison
to the remaining existing species on Earth. Since
in the distant future Homo sapiens will act as
the main mechanism of biological change and
Progression over the old concept of biological
evolution. Homo sapiens will have transcended,
gone beyond natural selection. The long periods
of time needed for biological change in the
Modern Synthesis of Biological Evolution will
be reduced to relative short and fast periods
of time. The modern theory of biological
evolution in the distant future will be seen
as a "technology algorithm". Genetic engineering,
biotechnology will make apparent the non-science
that evolution is.
In 1994, I learned something new in physics. It is
about Strange Quark Matter, in that it explains
pulsars. And the pretty fact about Strange Matter
is that if a star has just a little of it, it
quickly devours neutrons. In other words,
pulsars are Strange Quark Matter stars and not
neutron stars.
I brought that story about pulsars up, because I
quickly realized from Strange Quark Matter via
logic that the Theory of Biological Evolution is
either wholly without teleology or it is 100% teleology.
I do not think that you can have a theory of evolution
with a percentage of teleology. Either all teleology
or no teleology.
The Plutonium Atom Totality is the completion of
my quest for a new and more comprehensive theory of
biological evolution. It was a 16 year quest 1974-1990
by me to turn Bio-Evolution into math. A theory of
biological evolution with a physical and math basis,
that is, the theory of biological evolution based on
physics. In 1994, I realized that the theory of
Bio-Evolution was a sham, a fake, and nothing of it
is salvageable. Like the Uniformitarianism of geology,
Bio-evolution is just another algorithm.
PU Atom Whole provides the explanation and
understanding of the biological theory of evolution
as an algorithm that fails as science and must give
way to the more correct science of
Superdeterminism-Progression. Superdeterminism-Progression
is extension of the natural, physical ordering process
of nucleosynthesis. Stars, supernovas, and pulsars are
hot nucleosynthesis and life is cold nucleosynthesis.
Life is a part of the observable electron universe
remaking the Totality into a new Atom Totality of element 96.
PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY
theory
The meaning of time and space in an Atom Totality
Universe
by Archimedes Plutonium
this is a return to website location
http://www.newphys.se/elektromagnum/physics/LudwigPlutonium/
TIME
Time itself is derivative of what atoms are and what atoms do,
and what the atoms are doing is nucleosynthesis-- the process of
ever heavier element build-up. The succession of atoms starting
with hydrogen on up to plutonium and then transplutonium atoms on
up to and including element 189, marks time.
In abstraction, time is merely the count of atoms and how those
atoms are geometrically arranged. Because the count of atoms in
the future is more than in the past it is impossible to time
travel into the future or past. Time travel means that the exact
number of atoms and how those atoms are arranged must be
reduplicated. Impossible, hence time travel is impossible.
Atoms have an arrow of direction, a successor function, and that
arrow is pointing to ever heavier elements, from hydrogen as
number 1 to what is currently verified nucleosynthesized element
of atomic number 109. The direction of time is the succession of
atoms 1,2,3,4,5, . . 94,95,96, . . 108,109, . . 188, and 189.
Time appears in the 2nd law of thermodynamics and it is an
irreversible process with an arrow of direction. The reason why
time is irreversible with an arrow of direction is because the
totality is an atom itself in the process of ever heavier
element build-up. But as I will explain below, the 2nd law of
thermodynamics is a subset of radioactivities. Thus
radioactivity is the fundamental measure of time.
Radioactivity is time and time is radioactivity.
Are there three or two known forces? There is strong
nuclear (S), radioactivities (R) and electromagnetism (EM).
But when R is added to EM they are almost the same coupling
force strength as S. So, can one say only two fundamental
interactions exist-- R and EM? Tough question. And math as
usual sheds light on an answer. If you look at geometry,
3 and only 3 geometries exist, but you can take two of
those three geometries to form the other. This agrees with
the hyasys theory.
A first measure of time is to take an electrical
pendulum where an electric current moves back and forth. This
measure of time involves the electromagnetic interaction and a
device known as an electron beam oscillator which uses lasers
have recorded times as short as 10^-12 second. I will call EM
time measurements as t_3.
A second measure of time is the use of radioactivities.
Radioactivity acts as an excellent clock since the half-life
of a radioactive sample of material decreases by the same
fraction for successive equal increases in its time. Take
a sample of uranium 238U then for a period of time T, 1/2
of the 238U atoms remain, then in the next equal period
time T, 1/4 of the 238U atoms remain, then in the next equal
period time T, 1/8 remain, and so on. I will call
radioactivities time measurements as t_2.
A third measure of time uses the strong nuclear
interaction via the period of nuclear vibrations. We can
measure the lifetime of Strange Particle resonances,
Strange Particles such as the Kdegrees particle (this is
the particle in which time reversal symmetry was violated).
The lifetime of these particle resonances is about
10^-24 second. The time it takes light to travel across the
nucleus of hydrogen which is a single proton is approximately
10^-24 second. An interesting fact is that the nucleus of
hydrogen is the smallest known thing or object in existence.
It is not coincidence that the smallest object and the shortest
time have the same number associated. I will call strong
nuclear time t_1.
The possibility of time travel of going backwards or
forwards in our last two electron observable universe of
plutonium is impossible because it would mean you would
have to have all the hydrogen, helium, and all the other
elements, subatomic particles in the exact count and the
exact position, exact arrangement of the desired past or
future time. What constitutes time itself is the exact
count and the arrangement of every atom, every element.
But I speculate there is a time travel which our
biological life waves experience, since what holds an
electron to the nucleus of an atom is the Coulomb
interaction where a photon is exchanged with proton and
electron. A photon has no rest mass (or a very tiny
one at that) which means it is practical purposes almost
always in motion, it hardly ever stops moving, and it
exists for almost all time t_2. Thus our life waves
which are a finite number of photons, a bundle of photons,
will exist for almost all time, and also every other
living creature's life waves will exist for almost all
time. These life waves will experience and be a part
of many different lives coming back to another living
creature whether on Earth or other life-supporting
planets. Thus our life waves in the form of photons
time travel forward (reincarnate).
The superposition principle applies to the 3 types of
time. Where different times are superpositioned as one. Time
t_1 is the succession of atom totalities from hydrogen, to
helium, to lithium, to beryllium, to boron, to carbon, . . ,
on up to thorium, to protoactinium, to uranium, to neptunium,
to the present Plutonium Atom Totality, and so on up
through successive atom totalities of element 95, then to
element 96, and so on and on. This is the succession of
time which progressively increases in number, an
irreversible time and a time with an arrow of direction.
Time t_1 corresponds with the age of any particular atom
totality and is a function of spontaneous fission (SF)
of the nuclear strong interaction. Spontaneous Fission
(SF) is associated with the strong nuclear interaction,
and not the radioactivities interaction. Time t_1 is a
discontinuous time like the radioactivities time t_2.
The second type of time t_2 is radioactivities and it is
associated with the nucleus and the electrons.
Radioactivities is the term which includes spontaneous
materialization of neutrons plus radioactive decay plus
radioactive growth. Time t_2 is comprised of these 3
components: (1) radioactivities of spontaneous neutron
materialization, (2) radioactive decay, and (3) radioactive
growth. Measuring how much radioactive decay of uranium
into lead is in a uranium ore sample is governed by the
half-life formula for uranium and this measurement is the
reading of a clock. Radioactivities is time, and the
increase in entropy of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is a
restatement of radioactive decay from an element of high
atomic number and thus more order to an element of lower
atomic number and thus less order (disorder). The idea
that the entropy of a closed system always increases is
another way of saying that most atoms radioactively decay
instead of radioactively growing.
Radioactivities time can go in two directions where
in a uranium sample, many of the uranium atoms are decaying
into lead, but some of the atoms are radioactively growing and
transmutating into neptunium and plutonium. Analogously, the
closed system of the Sun and Earth, where most of the Sun's
energy is getting smoothed-out, disordered, but on Earth some
of that Sun's energy is turning into more complex, higher
ordered structures of life.
For t_2, most of the radioactivities is going into alpha,
beta and neutron materialization. This is the predominant
process of growth of astronomical bodies in the universe.
Decay from the nucleus of the Atom Whole is the spontaneous
appearance of new matter in our observable universe. Alpha
particles, beta particles and neutrons which spontaneously
materialize from what appear as out of nowhere came from
the nucleus of 231Pu.
The neutron half-life is 10.61 (plus or minus 0.16) minutes.
Between the two radioactivities modes of decay or growth,
there is a statistical preponderance towards radioactive decay.
But comparing radioactivities mode of neutron materialization
to mode of decay, when measured in terms of relative coupling
strengths, then it is shown that radioactive neutron
materialization is predominant over radioactive decay.
Time t_2 is essentially the arrangement of all the atoms
in each atom totality, where time t_1 is the succession of
atom totalities. Time t_2 is statistical, similar in property
to the thermodynamic function of temperature which is also
statistical. Temperature is a purely statistical number and
the same with time t_2.
Now a more basic idea or explanation of the 2nd law of
thermodynamics is obtained and derived from time t_2. I assert
that the 2nd law is radioactive decay without factoring in
radioactive growth, nor radioactive spontaneous particle
materialization. That if a large block of 100% uranium of only
one particular isotope was measured and then remeasured, the
block will have mostly radioactively decayed into lead
isotopes and neon isotopes. This description of radioactive
decay is a description of the 2nd law, described as an ordered
state (a state where the element is of a high atomic number)
changed to a state of lesser order (lower atomic number
elements). Thus radioactive decay is the more fundamental
principle over the 2nd law of thermodynamics, since the 2nd
law does not even account for the small number of neptunium
and plutonium atoms coming from radioactive growth in the
original uranium block. Starting with a 100% block of only
one isotope of uranium then by time t_2 most of the uranium
isotopes will decay into lower atomic number elements,
explaining what the 2nd law of thermodynamics is at a more
fundamental level, but also, this 100% block will have some
radioactive growth for a small number of the uranium isotopes
will transmutate by electron emission decay where a neutron
in the nucleus is transformed into a proton increasing the
atomic number Z by 1 into a neptunium atom and then a fewer
yet of these neptunium atoms will transmutate by electron
emission decay into a plutonium atom, and then there is a
possibility of double electron emission decay of a very
small number of the uranium isotopes decaying forming
plutonium directly from uranium. Thus after time t_2, a
few atoms will materialize that have more order than the
original uranium atoms.
Time t_3 is associated with the photon, which is
associated with the electromagnetic interaction. Time t_3
is measured by electric clocks and this type of time is
seen as having a continuous property.
Time in quantum theory is different from our commonsense
notion of time as age of the observable universe. The 3 types
of time are superpositioned into 1, where the age of the
observable electron universe is that of the predominant time
t_1, but also by complementarity, time t_2, radioactivities,
the arrangement and spontaneous generation of the atoms
which compose our observable electron universe. Time t_1
is the age of the electron universe but in a mirror
reflection, a quantum duality, it is also time t_2.
If the diameter of our plutonium atom electron observable
universe is approximately 7.86 x 10^25 meters, then the age
of our electron observable plutonium universe having succeeded
from a neptunium totality is about 2.62 x 10^17 seconds in
order to make the number for the speed of light marker to come
out to 3 x 10^8 M/S. The actual observations and calculations
made of the age and diameter of the observable universe are
nearly the same as the ones given above. The difference
between the age in a plutonium atom electron observable
universe with a big bang model is that the big bang takes age
zero with the singularity and the subsequent expansion as the
total time of the universe. Whereas 2.62 x 10^17 seconds in
a Pu model runs back not to age zero but to the time in which
the Neptunium Atom Totality expanded into our present Plutonium
Atom Totality. The age of the totality in a Pu model universe
is way back from a Plutonium Atom Totality, then back through
a Neptunium Atom Totality, then back through a Uranium Atom
Totality, then back through a Protoactinium Atom Totality and
so on back to a Hydrogen Atom Totality. So an estimated age
of the totality from a Hydrogen Atom Totality to our present
plutonium atom observable electron universe is the sum of 94
different ages of atom totalities. Or in another consideration:
94 different electron multiverses summed.
The time variable in the Schroedinger equation and the
Dirac equation is the time of electromagnetism, t_3, a
continuous measured time, altogether different from a discrete
measured time of t_1 strong nuclear or t_2 radioactivities.
The Dirac equation involves only particles with spin 1/2, that
is, the Dirac equation works for electrons but it does not
work for photons.
Continuous measured times are associated with
electromagnetism. The Klein-Gordon equation has the property
that the total probability of a particle positioned somewhere,
anywhere in the totality varies with time. That is, the
particle depends on time itself; the particle comes and goes.
The Klein-Gordon equation makes sense in a Pu atom totality in
that particles materialize and disappear (virtual particles),
depending on time, such that the totality is
superdeterministic. A Plutonium Atom Totality reinterprets
all of the important equations of physics. The (1)
Schroedinger equation which involves all particles; all
spins, both bosons and fermions. The (2) Dirac equation, and
the (3) Klein-Gordon equation. So that these equations all
have meaningful scientific results, and all of these equations
are correct under proper Pu interpretation.
Time in an atom totality has two directions, forward and
backwards at once. This is evident by math physics that there
is a quantum symmetry in physical experiments to go backwards
or forwards. Analogously in math, where positive numbers exist,
there also exists negative numbers, (a mirror reflection,
where the quantities are the same, only the signs are opposite,
the direction is opposite). The two directions of time is
evident when doing experimental work on atoms in a science
laboratory where the radioactivities time is measured.
Radioactive growth is the forward direction and radioactive
decay is the backward direction which the 2nd law of
thermodynamics calls entropy. But when the time of the
succession of atom totalities, the strong nuclear time t_1,
is superpositioned with the radioactivities time t_2,
then the strong nuclear interaction statistically
predominates over radioactivities time, or any other time.
The strong nuclear time, t_1 is equal to the
radioactivities time t_2 added with electromagnetism time
t_3, and t_1 is only in the forward direction and when
superpositioned with the other two times t_2, and t_3,
then time as we in every common day practice experience
goes in one direction, a superpositioned t_1,which is
forward direction within an Atom Totality of atomic
number 94 proceeding in the direction to atomic number
95, to 96, to 97, to 98, to 99, to 100, and on and on.
As we go forward then in the very far distant future,
the atom totalities are ever larger numbers, until the
Atom Totality reaches element ...999999. and then 1 more
which is back to 0, or a Neutron Totality. Infinity,
which is the number ...999999radix.point99999... is the
dual of 0, and infinity is the inverse of zero. Meaning
that the totality has come around in full circle to an
atom of zero atomic number which is a neutron, and a
neutron will radioactively decay into a hydrogen atom of
atomic number 1 and start the cycle over again with the
Hydrogen Atom Totality. When the atom totality reaches
infinity of atomic number ...99999.99999... then the
atom totality succession will repeat itself through the
elements. The only things that exist are atoms.
SPACE
Illustrate an exact electron density distribution cross section
for
90% of a hydrogen atom by means of the Schroedinger wave equation,
showing the spherical shape of the 1s orbital.
Illustrate the cross section of s electrons where the white
dots
(simulate stars or galaxies) against blackbody cavity represent 90%
of the electron density distribution. Note the white dots extend out
to infinity for each and every electron. Also, note the radial nodes
in the 2s and 3s orbitals. The highest probability of finding a
"piece" of the electron in any s orbital is the exact center of the
nucleus, i.e., the electron is mostly inside the proton. And
this accords with hyasys theory.
Try to illustrate the lithium atom as a first gross
approximation cross
section by means of the Schroedinger wave equation of 90% of the
electron
density distribution for just the last one electron in a 2s orbital of
a
lithium atom, not taking into account the other two electrons. It is
only
an approximation since the shape of the electron orbital does not take
into
consideration the electromagnetic interaction of the other two
electrons.
Notice the radial node of a lithium atom. Also, illustrate as a first
gross
approximation by means of the Schroedinger equation of 90% of the
electron
density distribution for just the last one electron in a 3s orbital of
a sodium
atom. Notice the two radial nodes where the electron cannot occur.
Illustrate as a first gross approximation cross section by
means of the
Schroedinger wave equation of 90% of the electron density distribution
for just
the last one electron of a carbon atom, showing a 2p electron orbital.
It is
only an approximation since the shape of the electron orbital does not
take into
consideration the electromagnetic interaction of the other 5 electrons.
Notice
the angular node of a carbon atom making for the lobelike shapes, hence
making for a zero probability of the electron in the nucleus.
Illustrate the last electron of a carbon atom where the white dots
represent
90% of the electron density distribution
Illustrate the last electron of carbon where the concentric ellipses
go out to
infinity. Show white dots against blackbody cavity representing 90% of
the
electron density distribution.
The meaning of space is derivative of atoms. Space is atom
electron space.
The space we make physical measurements in and of, is the space of just
the last
two electrons, the 93rd and 94th electron of plutonium 231Pu.
The meaning of anything and everything is derivative of atoms.
Space is
electron space and our measuring of space is derivative of the
conjugate
variables of position-momentum. Position in the Uncertainty Principle
measures
space of an atom. The Schroedinger wave equation can describe this
measured
space.
The Schroedinger wave equation is a particular case of general
equations
describing the physical properties of diffusion. A diffusion equation
can
describe the motion of an electron moving along a line of atoms, from
one point
to the next, i.e., if an electron has a certain amplitude at one point,
then at
a small time later what is the amplitude at a second point close by.
The general diffusion equation is this.
(sqrt-1)(hbar)(ũC(x,t)/ũt) = - (hbar^2/2m)(ũ^2C(x,t)/ũx^2
This general diffusion equation is a second order partial
differential
equation. It says that the time rate of change of C(x,t), the amplitude
to find
the electron at x,t, depends on the amplitude to find the electron at
points
close by, in a way which is proportional to the second derivative of
the
amplitude with respect to position.
The Schroedinger equation has a wave function called psi in it
and psi
represents matter waves. The amplitude (psi)(x,y,z,t) for an electron
moving in
a potential U(x,y,z,t) follows this partial differential equation.
The Schroedinger equation is this.
(sqrt-1)(hbar)(ũ(psi)/ũt) = - (hbar^2/2m)(gradient^2(psi)) + U(psi)
Such an equation is capable of describing all atomic phenomena.
It explains
energy levels and all facts of chemical bonding. The equation is
capable of
describing all atomic phenomena in principle but not in practice. It is
impossible to describe atomic phenomena beyond a one or two electron
atom system
because the maths of the wave equation rapidly becomes too pondersome.
In
practice only the hydrogen and helium atom have been calculated to high
accuracy.
The Dirac equation is a relativistic quantum-mechanical wave
equation and is
a first order partial differential equation in space and time. The
Dirac equation
is this.
(sqrt-1)(hbar)(ũpsi/ũt) = - ((sqrt-1)(hbar)cA dot product
gradient(psi))
+
mc^2B(psi)
Where A is a set of three 4x4 matrices; B is one 4 x 4 matrix,
and psi =
psi(x,y,z,t). Unlike the Schroedinger equation, the Dirac equation
involves
matrices.
An atom is a duality of wave-particle, and since a wave is
continuous and a
particle is discrete, thus a duality of wave-particle is a duality of
continuous-discrete. And since continuous is geometry, and discrete
are Adic
numbers, then the duality of wave-particle is a duality of
geometry-arithmetic.
The Adic numbers are discrete since they are obtained by the endless
adding of
1.000... Whole Real. And so it is correct to say wave-particle is a
duality of
geometry-Adic numbers, where the Adic numbers are all the P-adics and
N-adics.
This duality of continuous-discrete is seen by the fact that quantum
matrix
mechanics has matrices which are discrete objects, but wave mechanics
has sine,
cosine, cotangent, and other curves which are continuous curves in
math. It is a
fallout from physics duality that math theorems have proofs from both
geometry
and from arithmetic.
The Adics describe Riemannian geometry, since Riemannian
geometry is the set
of all Adics. There is a difference between geometry and space. Before
I discuss
in detail the meaning of space, and also the connection between space
and
geometry, I must first review quantum mechanics, specifically shells
and
subshells of atoms. Below is a long review of quantum mechanics.
THE 4 QUANTUM NUMBERS (n, L, m_L, m_s)
The Pauli exclusion principle uses 4 quantum numbers (n, L,
m_L, m_s). Where
the principal quantum number n for a given atom such as plutonium
determines
the energy E, such that E_n = (-(hbar)cR)/n^2. In more general form for
the
energy E_(n) = -(ZxZ)/(2xnxn) in atomic units, where Z is the atomic
number.
And also n determines the number of states n^2 of this given energy
E_(n). The
number n is the shell and refers to the relative average distance of
the electron
from the nucleus. The principal quantum number n is restricted to only
positive
Whole Real values, starting with 1.00..., and n can have a range of
values of
1.00...,2.00...,3.00... ,4.00...,etc. for any particular atom. For a
particular
plutonium atom then n has a range of values of 1.00...,2.00...,3.00...
,4.00...,
etc.
The orbital angular momentum L gives the subshell and the shape
of the
orbital for the electron. Each orbital of a given subshell of a
hydrogen atom
is almost but not quite equivalent in energy when there is no magnetic
field.
The L quantum number is restricted to positive Whole Real values of
0,1.00...,
2.00..., . . n-1. The L quantum number is the common s,p,d,f subshells
of atoms
and where L=3.00... that is the f subshell. Physics history started
the
description of atomic levels with shells and subshells, and denoted
subshells as
s,p,d,f. The new notation replaces s,p,d,f with orbital angular
momentum L.
Where L=0 that is an s subshell, where L=1.00... is the p subshell,
where
L=2.00... is the d subshell, and where L=3.00... is the f subshell.
Actually, the terms shell and subshell come from biology.
Better terms for
shell and subshell are space and subspace. The history of Atomic
Physics started
with the image, the conceptualization of shell from biology. Perhaps
the
logarithmic spiral of a nautilus shell served as a model. Because the
compartments of a logarithmic spiral have equi-proportioned
compartments inside
the spiral yet each successive compartment is scaled larger. A truer
picture
instead of biological shell is logarithmic space. Look at the picture
from
Jacobs math text of the Nautilus logarithm spiral. It shows successive
equi-proportioned compartments. As the logarithmic spirals outward, the
only
thing that changes with the compartments is the scale, the size of the
compartments increases.
Magnetic quantum number m_L is the component of angular
momentum of an atom
on the z axis. The quantum number m_L is the orientation of the
orbital. The
number m_L is restricted to Whole Real values, either positive or
negative or
zero. Where L=0 then m_L = 0, and where L=1.00... then m_L =
-1.00...,0,+1.00...,
and where L=2.00... then m_L = -2.00...,-1.00...,0,+1.00...,+2.00...,
and where
L=3.00... then m_L =
-3.00...,-2.00...,-1.00...,0,+1.00...,+2.00...,+3.00....
The quantum number m_s is the spin quantum number which is the
spin of an
electron, m_s = +1/2. Spin quantum number has positive values only,
but spin
states for an electron or proton can correspond to s' = +1/2 and s'' =
-1/2. The
fact that spin quantum number has positive values only, the spin of an
electron,
m_s = +1/2, is an important fact in math for all of math is a mirror
reflection
of atoms, what they are and what they do and you can say that math is
just
physics only without the heavy equipment experimental set-up, that math
is the
doing of physics with pen and paper. The importance of only +1/2 spin
for math
comes into the proof of the Riemann Hypothesis.
The aufbau model is used to suggest the ground state (i.e. the
lowest energy
electronic structure of Pu).
Thus, for the aufbau model the ordering of plutonium subshells
is as follows.
1s to 2s to 2p to 3s to 3p to 4s to 3d to 4p to 5s to 4d to 5p
to 6s to 4f to 5d to 6p to 7s to 5f to 6d to 7p to 8s to 5g to
6f to 7d to 8p to 9s to 6g to 7f
Note that element 190 is 7f2 according to the first approximation of
the aufbau
model.
The quantum mechanical approach starts with a description of
electronic
structure in terms of an electronic configuration in which electrons
are assigned
to the lowest energy atomic orbitals available under two rules.
Rule 1. No two electrons can have the same values of all four quantum
numbers
n,L, mL and ms. This is the Pauli exclusion principle.
Rule 2. All other things being equal the state with the maximum number
of
parallel spins (see below) has the lowest energy (Hund's first rule).
The details of the orbital picture are obtained by solving the
Schroedinger
equation (SE) for the hydrogen atom. For this one-electron system the
SE can be
solved exactly and the allowed solutions are given by the 4 quantum
numbers
(n, L, m_L, m_s) which can have the following ranges.
n = 1.00...,2.00...,.... infinity
For a one electron atom, the energy of an orbital is determined by the
value of n
such that E_(n) = -(ZxZ)/(2xnxn) in atomic units, where Z is the atomic
number.
L = 0,1.000....,.., (n-1). Thus L can be no larger than (n -1).
L is a quantum number which describes the allowed values for the square
of the
orbital angular momentum.
For a given value of L, m_L can take the following (2L + 1) values:
m_L = 0,+1, . ., +L
m_L is a quantum number which describes the allowed values for the
projection,
along some direction, of the orbital angular momentum. Thus, for a
given value
of L the orbital angular momentum vector can have (2L + 1) orientations
with
respect to some fixed direction.
For a single electron, the only value that the spin angular momentum
can take is
a spin quantum number s = +1/2.
The quantum number m_s defines the allowed values for the projection of
the spin
angular momentum along some specified direction.
Thus, m_s can take two values +1/2 and -1/2 , and this is referred to
as the spin
of the electron. Where m_s = +1/2 is often referred to as a "spin-up"
electron
and m_s = -1/2 is often referred to as a "spin-down" electron.
Thus, for the hydrogen atom we get the following set of orbitals (in
order of
increasing energy).
n=1.0..., L =0, m_L =0
The convention is to replace the numerical value of L with a letter
code so that
L = 0 is called an s orbital, L = 1.0... is called a p orbital, L =
2.0... is
called a d orbital, L = 3.0... is called an f orbital, and L = 4.0...
is called
a g orbital, and so on. Thus, the above solution is called a 1s
orbital and the
convention is to precede the letter code for L with the numerical value
of n.
An electron may be assigned to this spatial orbital with m_s = +1/2 or
m_s =-1/2
and the Pauli exclusion principle indicates that a given orbital can
contain a
maximum of two electrons, one with m_s = +1/2 and one with m_s = -1/2.
n=2.0..., L =0, mL =0 (called a 2s orbital
n=2.0..., L=1.0..., m_L=-1.0..., 0, +1.0... (3 separate 2p orbitals
each
described by a different value of mL). Again each of these orbitals may
contain
a maximum of two electrons, i.e., one with "spin-up" and one with
"spin-down" .
For example, the 3 2p orbitals taken together can be occupied by a
maximum of
6.0... electrons.
n=3.0..., L =0, m_L=0 ( 1 3s orbital)
n=3.0..., L=1.0..., m_L=-1.0..., 0, +1.0... (3 3p orbitals)
n=3.0..., L=2.0..., m_L=-2.0...,-1.0..., 0, +1.0...,+2.0... (5 3d
orbitals)
n=4.0..., L =0, m_L=0 ( 1 4s orbital)
n=4.0..., L=1.0..., m_L=-1.0..., 0, +1.0... (3 4p orbitals)
n=4.0..., L=2.0..., m_L=-2.0...,-1.0..., 0, +1.0...,+2.0... (5 4d
orbitals)
n=4.0..., L=3.0..., m_L=-3.0...,-2.0...,-1.0..., 0,
+1.0...,+2.0...,+3.0...
(7 4f orbitals)
n=5.0..., L =0, m_L=0 ( 1 5s orbital)
n=5.0..., L=1.0..., m_L=-1.0..., 0, +1.0... (3 5p orbitals)
n=5.0..., L=2.0..., m_L=-2.0...,-1.0..., 0, +1.0...,+2.0... (5 5d
orbitals)
n=5.0..., L=3.0..., m_L=-3.0...,-2.0...,-1.0..., 0,
+1.0...,+2.0...,+3.0...
(7 5f orbitals)
n=5.0..., L=4.0..., m_L=-4.0...,-3.0...,-2.0...,-1.0..., 0,
+1.0...,+2.0...,
+3.0...,+4.0... (9 5g orbitals)
These are exact solutions for a one-electron atom. For a multielectron
atom one
cannot solve the SE exactly but one uses the above orbitals as a model
(a
reasonably accurate one for atoms of low atomic number) to construct
the
electronic structure. For many electron atoms, highly accurate
solutions of the
SE show that the energy depends on both n and L. The orbital energy
ordering for
many electron atoms depends on atomic number and for Pu a reasonable
ordering is
as follows.
1s to 2s to 2p to 3s to 3p to 4s to 3d to 4p to 5s to
4d to 5p to 6s to 4f to 5d to 6p to 7s to 5f
The neutral Pu atom has a total of 94 electrons. For the ground state,
one now
places these electrons into the above atomic orbitals using the lowest
energy
orbitals available consistent with the Pauli exclusion principle and
Hund's first
rule. One thereby, obtains an electron configuration.
1s(2)2s(2)2p(6)3s(2)3p(6)4s(2)3d(10)4p(6)5s(2)4d(10)5p(6)6s(2)4f(14)5d(1
0)6p(6)
7s(2)5f(6)
Where the numbers in parentheses indicate the numbers of electrons than
can be
accommodated in the set of orbitals.
Since electrons are indistinguishable one can only measure the
total angular
momentum of all the electrons (rather than the angular momentum of each
individual electron) and so there are further steps that one must take
to
describe more correctly the electronic structure of the ground state of
Pu.
All can agree that when an atom has 94 protons and 94 electrons
that it is a
plutonium atom. Is it possible to give 4 quantum numbers (n, L, m_L,
m_s) which
are unique to plutonium only? The answer is no. A neutral plutonium
atom must
have an n value of at least 7 for the 7s2 subshell, but it can have an
n value
out to infinity in any neutral plutonium atom which is in an excited
state. You
cannot have plutonium in which the ground state is 7s or below see the
aufbau
model. Just as it is impossible to have a nonionized lithium atom
where the n
quantum number is only 1. So too, a neutral plutonium atom in the
ground state
where the electrons have already filled the 7s2 subshell and below in
the aufbau
model which are all below the 5f, then it is impossible to have a Pu
atom which
ends with aufbau of 7s2. This aufbau is only a summary, it is a good
summary but
it is inaccurate because it is derived from a hydrogen atom by putting
successive
electrons into a hydrogen atom model. Because it is a hydrogen aufbau
model this
is one inaccuracy, another inaccuracy is when an atom has more than one
electron,
then all these added electrons interact with each other,
interdependent, causing
inaccuracy of the model. The description of all atoms beyond hydrogen
are
inaccurate models, and along with increasing atomic number comes
greater
inaccuracies.
The L value is not unique for plutonium since an excited
neutral plutonium
atom can have any L value. The numerical value for m_L, and m_s are
never
unique for plutonium.
Considering the Born interpretation of the Schroedinger
equation where the
probability density (rho) is proportional to psi x psi, gives the shape
of the
electron orbital. The wavefunction must satisfy these properties: (a)
finite
everywhere (b) continuous everywhere (c) have a continuous slope
everywhere (d)
is a function, that is, have a single value everywhere unless intrinsic
spin is
involved. These properties imply that the only wavefunctions that have
physical
meaning are solutions, eigenvalues, that satisfy particular boundary
(geometrical)
conditions, or values at particular locations in space. Atom
Totality
reinterprets the Born interpretation of the Schroedinger equation,
keeping the
above restrictions and asserting that the probability density
distribution of the
electron is the actual mass of the electron and the mass of the last
electrons of
the 5f6 of our plutonium atom observable electron universe are stars,
planets,
you and me.
Geometry is different from space. Space is position. Space
measures where
the particle is at. Space is the collapsed wavefunction. And the other
conjugate
variable to position is momentum. Momentum measures where the particle
is going.
Or restated, where the space is going. What the space is transforming
into. Thus,
space is formed by a geometry. Space is a discrete, such as the
counting numbers,
and a discrete is the dual to a continuous. Geometry-space are quantum
dualities.
Geometry is the uncollapsed wavefunction having the
possibilities or
potentialities of a collapsed wavefunction producing a space. An
uncollapsed
wavefunction (or geometry) has a continuous set of eigenvalues,
containing
infinitely many eigenvalues. A continuous set of infinitely many
eigenvalues
such as the eigenvalues for kinetic energy e.g. kinetic energy for
conduction
bands of electric current.
The collapsed wavefunction is space, the collapsed wavefunction
gives a
particular eigenvalue, the eigenvalues are discrete, a particular
positive
rational number, a Riemannian space. An uncollapsed wavefunction such
as
Riemannian geometry which is mathly the set of all positive Real
numbers or the
set of all of the Positive Integers or P-adics, has the potential of
turning into
a Riemannian space. A math example: the number pi is transcendental and
irrational and exists but it cannot be materialized. Existence has two
quantum
states one of collapsed (materialized) and the other of uncollapsed
(unmaterialized). When attempting to materialize pi, the wavefunction
is
collapsed and a rational approximation results such as 22/7 occurs, and
plutonium
is 22 subshells within 7 shells.
Space is the conjugate variable with geometry, and when geometry is
collapsed
then a space is formed. Another example: an electron in an uncollapsed
wavefunction has the geometry of Euclidean geometry but when the
wavefunction of
an electron is collapsed then the geometry becomes a space and that
space is a
Riemannian space. The electron collapsed is then a pointlike particle,
such as the
electron which we have somehow observed or measured from electric
current flowing
in a copper wire or an electron in an accelerator. A geometry is
infinite, but a
space is finite by coming back around on itself such as a circle. When
the
wavefunction collapses, it collapses into a Riemannian space of
finiteness, a
space of positive rational numbers where measurement is possible, a
collapse of
the wavefunction into Classical Newtonian physics. Renormalization
procedures of
QED by subtracting away infinities, are required in predicting
collapsed
wavefunctions.
The geometry of an atom is described by a probability
wavefunction which
applies to the nucleus and to the electrons. The geometry of an
electron of an
atom is described by a probability density distribution. The nucleus
of atoms
constitutes about 99.9% of the mass of the entire atom though it
occupies only
about 10^-14 of the volume. The nucleons are held together by nuclear
electrons
of hyasys only when at close proximity. This is called the nuclear
strong
interaction. The protons in the nucleus have a positive charge and
repel other
protons by the electromagnetic interaction.
As small as protons and neutrons are they are composed of geometries
as well
and since there exists 3 and only 3 geometries of Riem, Loba, and
Eucl, each
quark is one of those three types of geometries. A proton consists
of 2 up
quarks plus 1 down quark, where ((+2/3)+ (+2/3)+ (-1/3))= +1 charge.
A neutron
consists of 1 up quark plus 2 down quarks, where ((+2/3)+ (-1/3)+
(-1/3))= 0
charge. The assignment of numbers to quarks is merely the assignment
of a number
to say Riem geometry or Loba geometry or Eucl geometry.
The nucleus is surrounded by electrons which have a probability
density
distribution. The geometry of the electron probability density is
Euclidean
geometry. The geometry of atoms has every type of the three and only
three
existing geometries of Riemannian, Lobachevskian, and Euclidean, all
superpositioned into one. Atom geometry is the superpositioning of all
geometries.
The geometry of the totality is the geometry of a plutonium
atom. Our
observable electron universe is the geometry of the last two electrons
of a
plutonium atom. There are many pictures in chemistry textbooks showing
gross
first approximations of what the electron orbitals of atoms look like.
Usually
it is a dot picture. Look at the night sky of darkness with white dots
of stars
and galaxies. Look at a chemistry text book of the electron clound dot
picture.
Both are pictures of the same thing.
In the uncollapsed wavefunction, all electrons go out to
infinity because the
electromagnetic potential V is proportional to 1/r, where r is distance
of the
electron from the nucleus. See the graph of the electromagnetic
potential V.
Since the electromagnetic potential is infinite, this implies that the
dots of
electron density distribution is infinite. Since the dots of the
probability
density distribution represent galaxies (large white dots against a
blackbody
background), stars (smaller white dots), and astronomical objects (very
small
dots) this implies that since the dots are infinite, then the
astronomical
objects are infinite. Astronomical objects have no end in the
uncollapsed
wavefunction. The collapsed electron no doubt has a finite mass but the
uncollapsed electron goes out to infinity in infinite space. The
further in
space we make observations, the further we will collapse the
probability
wavefunction and consequently see newer astronomical objects. We will
never come
to an end in observing matter of the 93rd and 94th electrons. The
galaxies, stars
and planets are more dense near the nucleus and become sparser the
further out
from the nucleus. Much further out from the nucleus, there are no more
stars or
planets, only astronomical objects are materializable. Every electron
is
infinite in the uncollapsed state.
Graph: Show the electromagnetic potential V on the y-axis
versus distance on
the x-axis. Distance r is from the center of the nucleus to a point in
space x,
and q is the charge.
An electron orbital is the wavefunction of an atom. An electron
orbital can
accommodate at most 2 electrons, each with opposite spins. No more than
2
electrons can occupy any one of the s,p,d,f, . . orbitals via the
Pauli
exclusion principle. When one of the electrons has spin +1/2 then the
other must
have spin -1/2. Thus our observable universe is the last one electron
with spin
+1/2 sharing the 5f6 with the -1/2 spin electron of our 93rd electron.
The 93rd
electron with -1/2 spin is known as the "Dirac sea" which Dirac
derived from
the Dirac equation.
All s-orbitals are spherically symmetrical. All s-orbitals
have the highest
probability of the electron occurring exactly inside the nucleus, the
center of
the nucleus. In fact, the highest probability for the position of the
electron
in an s-orbital is the exact center of the nucleus of the atom. Since
every atom
has at least one s-orbital and since every s electron penetrates the
nucleus of
the atom, this fact is of very profound importance and is connected to
strong
nuclear force being nuclear electrons. The s-orbital electrons after
1s have
radial nodes and the number of radial nodes is determined by (n-1).
The
p-orbitals have one angular node which divides the probability
wavefunction into
two lobes. Because of this angular node, there is zero probability of
the
electron occurring inside the nucleus. There are 3 p-orbitals. All the
d-orbitals have two nodal planes. The nonzero angular momentum of a d
electron
guarantees that a d electron is never in the nucleus. There are 5
d-orbitals.
There are 7 f-orbitals. The f-orbitals have three nodal planes which
produces a
weak shielding of the outer electrons from the nucleus, resulting in
lanthanide
and actinide contractions. This contraction results in atomic radii of
the
lanthanide and actinide series as smaller than expected considering
these
elements places on the periodic chart of chemical elements.
I make this speculation that volume nodes do not exist. So far
I have listed
radial nodes, angular nodes, and planar nodes. I make the physics
speculation
that volume nodes can not materialize, for two reasons: (a) a volume
node would
imply a total vacuum is possible, and (b) if volume nodes could occur,
then it
would contradict the obvious fact that our observable electron universe
is that
of 3-space, that of Euclidean geometry, since volume nodes would imply
that the
Schroedinger equation which gives quantum physics solutions only for
Euclidean
3-space, could give solutions for something higher than Euclidean
3-space.
Implying that our observable universe is the next higher space beyond
Euclidean
3-space which is not true.
I make note that electron orbitals are very complex since they
are governed
by a probability wavefunction and atoms with more than one electron
have
electron to electron interactions which are not shown in these
pictures, and
thus the Schroedinger equation solution for s, p, d, f electron
orbitals are
many and varied. Some electron orbitals are very complicated shaped
orbitals.
It is a fact that a complete solution for the Schroedinger equation for
plutonium is impossible since it would require more time in
calculations and
computation than the entire age of the observable electron universe,
and the
pages written out on paper for such a book would more than fill the
entire
volume of the observable electron universe. This statement is a
practical
formulation of the uncertainty principle.
The geometry of a plutonium atom, and the geometry of any atom
are many
geometries superpositioned simultaneously. All atoms have the three
types of
geometries of Riemannian (spherical or elliptical), Lobachevskian
(hyperbolic),
and Euclidean plane superpositioned simultaneously. Superposition of
many types
of geometries all at once is counterintuitive. There is no outside to
this
plutonium atom for these geometries are endless. The boundary of any
and every
atom in an uncollapsed state is endless, because every and all
geometries
starting with Riemannian have infinity. And, although Riem unlike Loba
or Eucl
comes back around (the wraparound) onto the starting point (in P-adics
the
Positive Integers come back to the starting point of 0.)
When given atoms are measured such as in a science experiment,
then the
boundaries are finite because these atoms wavefunctions were collapsed,
resulting in a Riemannian space which is finite.
I reinterpret Gauss's Theorema egregium (theorem extraordinary)
which states:
the Gaussian curvature K remains invariant under isometric mappings.
Gauss was
awestruck by the fact that the curvature of space was invariant under
motions,
parameter transformations, and the bending of space.
I offer this as an example of the Theorema egregium. A cylinder
is
topologically equivalent to a torus. And a torus has all three types of
geometry
simultaneously. A cylinder has zero Gaussian curvature which means that
a
cylinder is a plane Euclidean geometry rolled-up. Considering that our
observable universe is the last electron of plutonium, which has the
superpositioning of Riemannian, Lobachevskian, and Euclidean geometry
simultaneously. Thus, if the planet Earth is located on the torus of
the 5f6,
we would observe Euclidean geometry, even though our space is very much
curved.
If Gauss had known that our observable universe was the last electron
of
plutonium, then this theorem would no longer look extraordinary, but
rather,
the explanation would fall-out directly from the fact that all of maths
is
derivative of atoms, and specifically, math geometry is a fall-out of
atom
geometry.
The nucleus of the Plutonium Atom Totality occupies some space
inside the
innermost electron shell of the Plutonium Atom Totality and it is not
observable
because of the nodal planes of 5f6 orbital. The nonzero angular
momentum of an
f electron guarantees that the last one electron of the 5f6 is never
near the
nucleus, thus the nucleus of the plutonium atom is not directly
observable. So,
no matter where the telescopes are arrayed, no direct observation of
the nucleus
of the plutonium atom is possible. But future experiments are possible
to infer
that the nucleus exists. Indirect verification of the nucleus is
possible.
I want to remark that in the distant future, the scientist who
looks out
onto the large scale observable universe with an advanced future
telescope is
doing the same as the scientist who is peering on the small scale of a
plutonium
atom under an advanced future microscope. The microscope and the
telescope in a
totality of where only atoms exist are in effect the very same
instruments.
Since the totality is an atom, physics loses scale, the large scale and
small
scale are combined into one.
The Pauli exclusion principle applies to all neutrons, protons,
and electrons.
It says that no two neutrons can be in the same state; that no two
protons can be
in the same state; that no two electrons can be in the same state. For
electrons,
the Pauli exclusion principle is that no state can contain more than
one electron.
If it were not for this rule, all of the electrons in every
multielectron atom
would collapse into the n=1 shell. If it were not for this rule, then
there
would be no chemistry, no life, and not much of anything. The different
electron
shells, subshells, and the nucleons of the nucleus as given by the
Pauli
exclusion principle are different numbered Riemannian spaces. The
different
Pauli exclusion states are different Riemannian spaces, and because of
these
different spaces, other electrons of the plutonium atom are not
directly
observable. Those observations are excluded.
Atom geometry has only 3 possible dimensions. There have been
many articles
written in the physics literature concerning the fact that QM works in
the
Schroedinger Equation for electrons only in the 3rd dimension. QM does
not work
in 0, 1, 2, 4, or higher dimension. Only in dimension 3 does QM work.
Here are
two titles of articles concerning this fact
Quarks,atoms,and the 1/N expansion
and
Large-N quantum mechanics and classical limits
Those two references imply that for QUANTUM MECHANICS and the
Schroedinger
Equation, only 3rd DIMENSION works. Not 4th or higher dimension and not
2nd,
1st or 0 dimension. ONLY 3rd dimensions works to make Quantum Mechanics
work.
The Schroedinger Equation works for 3rd dimension only. In 4th
dimension or
higher then the results come out to be Classical Physics which is wrong
physics.
Classical Physics is just a first approximation to Quantum Physics,
which to all
known experimentation QM is true. This fact that QM works for electrons
only in
3rd dimension and any dimension higher than 3rd dimension the result is
Classical
Mechanics -- not Quantum Mechanics is the old idea of the
Correspondence
Principle which I call the Correspondence Corollary. I claim the
correct
definition and understanding of Dimension will not come from math, but
rather
from physics. The correct idea of dimension comes from Quantum
Mechanics, QM.
Let me point out a nice thing about the history of math and
physics. Both
the math and physics communities are highly conservative and
bandwagonish. The
physics community picked-up on the idea of "conservation laws" and ran
with it.
Now the recent history of physics is starting to unravel the
conservation laws.
First there unraveled the conservation of parity, second there
unraveled
time-reversal. What is next? I contend all conservation laws will be
unraveled
except for conservation laws which come from QM, provided if and only
if there
are any conservation laws in QM. I speculate that there are no
conservation laws
in QM. Why do I say this? Because conservation laws imply
changelessness. And in
an atom totality, everything changes with new and different atoms.
Except the
fact of the existence of atoms and the atom totality. Getting back to
my
conservation laws running story.
Math has a very pretty theorem called the Banach-Tarski Theorem
which
disproves the conservation of energy/mass. However this pretty theorem
is not
enough to sway the physics community. Because they are so conservative
of a
bandwagon. Now let us look at the flip-side, the ultra-conservative
math
community. The math definition of dimension is a flop and a failure.
Poincare
could not define dimension, and later math persons could not. I say
that the
Poincare Conjecture is a simple proof. Simple when a reasonable
definition of
Dimension is seen. Impossible when using a monsterously imprecise
definition.
I say that when a body of physics knowledge implies that a math
definition or
a math subject is flawed, failed, inconsistent and downright
nonexistent. Then it
is quick time to review that math definition, or math subject and
discard it.
The above shows two cases (1) where the Banach-Tarski math theorem
proves
something in physics-- conservation of energy/mass is a fakery; (2)
where the
physics experiments and theories show that the 4th dimension and higher
are
chimeras, nonexistent, and hence the math definition of dimension must
change in
light of this physics knowledge. The correct definition of Dimension
will most
certainly come from QM.
This allows math to keep the usual definition of dimension as
the number of
perpendicular axes. The 3rd dimension having 3 perpendicular axes. So
then,
after 3 perpendicular axes there does not exist a 4th or higher.
Since space is associated with the collapse of the
wavefunction, and the
wavefunction is collapsed when we have made a measurement on atom
geometry. And
since QM only has physical meaning when infinity is renormalized, then
atom space
is always Riemannian space, because only Riemannian geometry is
renormalizable.
Only Riem geometry is closed and not open as Loba and Eucl geometries
are. Space
is the quantum materialization of particles. Riemannian space is
particlelike
such as spheres or ellipsoids as photons, electrons, or bullets in the
double-slit experiment. Riemannian space is spherical, or ellipsoidal
such as
the Earth or stars.
The Schroedinger wave equation for a helium atom with two
electrons requires
6-spaces (not dimensions). In the case of lithium, 9-spaces are
required. For
every additional electron, an additional 3-spaces are required. So for
plutonium with 94 electrons, 94 X 3 spaces which is 282 spaces are
required in
order to solve the Schroedinger wave equation. Every electron requires
3-spaces,
and every electron requires 3-dimensional plane Euclidean geometry in
order for
the Schroedinger wave equation to work. Again, I repeat, for
4-dimensions and
higher the wave equation approaches "classical physics" (correspondence
corollary). Only 3-dimensions works for the Schroedinger wave equation
to
produce quantum theory, and all 3-dimensions in the collapsed
wavefunction have
Riemannian space.
PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY
Universe
Direction in the Atom Totality
by Archimedes Plutonium
this is a return to website location
http://www.newphys.se/elektromagnum/physics/LudwigPlutonium/
Subject: Direction of the Cosmos in an Atom Totality
PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 21APR1997
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 1997/05/05
Message-Id: (5klqo2$pt9$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro
PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 21 April 1997, vol 78 pp3043-3046
--- quoting PRL ---
Indication of Anisotropy in Electromagnetic Propagation over
Cosmological Distances Borge Nodland Univ of Rochester & John P.
Ralston Univ of Kansas
We report a systematic rotation of the plane of polarization of
electromagnetic radiation propagating over cosmological distances. The
effect is extracted independently from Faraday rotation, and found to
be correlated with the angular positions and distances to the sources.
Monte Carlo analysis yields probabilistic P values of order 10^-3 fro
this to occur as a fluctuation. A fit yields a birefringence scale of
order 10^25 h_o/h m. Dependence on redshift z rules out a local effect.
Barring hidden systematic bias in the data, the correlation indicates a
new cosmological effect.
Polarized electromagnetic radiation propagating across the Universe
has its plane of polarization rotated by the Faraday effect [1]. We
report findings of an additional rotation, remaining after Faraday
rotation is extracted, which may represent evidence for cosmological
anisotropy on a vast scale.
--- end quoting PRL ---
--- quoting SCIENCE NEWS 26APR97, p252 ---
Does the Cosmos Have a Direction?
... direction is meaningless in .. the Big Bang model
An analysis of the polarization of radio waves emitted by distant
galaxies suggests that the universe may have a preferred direction
after all.
... says the finding appears to be at odds with measurements of the
cosmic microwave background ...
--- end quoting SN, 26APR97 ---
The Big Bang model falls dead. The Steady State model falls dead. The
Atom Totality theory says that there are no fluctuations in the cosmic
background radiation, instead we are at the limit of our measuring
precision. And in an Atom Totality there is a direction because there
is a nucleus. Is the direction from Sextans to Aquila towards the
nucleus of our 231Pu Atom Universe?
So far, the most convincing evidence for the Atom Totality is two
ages, older stars inside a younger universe, ie, the old stars of the
Uranium Atom Totality within the newer Plutonium Atom Totality.
But as time goes on and scientists keep reporting more and more and
more observations that kill the Big Bang theory, yet only help support
the Atom Totality theory, that is what great science is all about. I do
not think I will have to wait 2,000 years like Aristarchus to prove the
heliocentric planetary system. Or 2,000 years like Democritus to prove
the Atomic theory. No, I think that within my lifetime I will see the
Big Bang theory killed and the Atom Totality theory the only theory of
the universe.
I wonder if someone can make a relationship of the numbers reported
by Messrs Nodland and Ralston of light polarization with that of the
element plutonium? Are the numbers of Nodland and Ralston able to be
correlated to microscopic atomic physics of plutonium? Say for instance
that the numbers fit only plutonium and not any other chemical element?
The recent reported ages of 20 billion year old stars and a universe of
7 billion years old nicely fits the mean lifetime of thorium and
uranium respectively. Of course we are living in the Plutonium Atom
Totality where the six electrons of the 5f6 gives us these two
different ages. So is the 5f6 of plutonium able to be correlated with
light polarization as given by Nodland and Ralston?
What would be real convincing evidence of the 231Pu Atom Totality
would be a sighting of the nucleus, but then again, the many goon clods
of the science community would say that it was a black hole. In an Atom
Totality, no black holes exist. Black holes are as fictional as angels.
Neither a Big Bang nor Steady State have a direction. But an Atom
Totality has a nucleus and hence a major direction.
PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY
theory
Past hints of the Atom Totality theory
by Archimedes Plutonium
this is a return to website location
http://www.newphys.se/elektromagnum/physics/LudwigPlutonium/
No great science theory arrives in a background of not-much-going-on,
and no problems to be solved. All great theories arise out of the
current problems and problems wanting and begging for a solution.
Where does the Quantum world end and the Classical Newtonian
physics world of measurement begin? That problem became the
world's number one physics problem ever since QM was discovered in
the early part of this century circa 1900-1930.
Science is pragmatic and practical and all great theories have long
past previous suggestions or hints or forerunners or one can sort
of "read more into past works" or, someone can exaggerate past
works to hint of recent discoveries. It is fun to trace past
histories for strands of thought that hinted of, or suggested of
the Atom Totality and that is what this article attempts to do. In
one of the listings below I show where Charles S. Peirce,
the famous USA pragmatist hinted of Quantum Mechanics long before
QM was discovered. And that is not to say that Peirce is the
discoverer of QM but it shows how new important discoveries have
had past hints. Some past hints have actually been the catalyst
or booster in the forming of the new discovery.
I have wondered whether Democritus himself by pure math logic
reasoning came to the conclusion that the universe itself must
be an atom. For clearly, it follows that if all things are made-up
of atoms (or is the void between atoms) then this logically implies
that the whole must be an atom itself (or the void and
clearly it cannot be a void since we exist). Did Democritus have
the idea that since all matter was made up of atoms that by pure
math logic implied the entirety is an atom itself? Not knowing
any physics or any science but just good in math logic, that if
you make the theory that all things are made up of atoms, by pure
math logic reasoning implies that the whole is also an atom itself!
I know Democritus was a math genius for Archimedes recognized his
talents, but still, I did not expect Democritus to push his Atomic
Theory to its logical conclusion. Perusing the physics history
literature I came across this gem.
--- start quoting A SHORT HISTORY OF ATOMISM
by J. Gregory, Univ. Leeds, 1931, page 4 ---
The traditional atom, the genuine atom, is both quite
indestructible and exceedingly minute. Atoms were indivisible
for Leucippus because they were too minute to be divided,
and for Democritus because they were too hard to be broken.
If sundry traditions are trustworthy, Democritus allowed all
sizes to atoms: a single Democritean atom might even be, so
some said, as big as the world. The gigantic Democritean atom,
if it ever existed, vanished from the atomistic tradition.
The subsequent Epicurean atom was too hard to be broken, but
it was also too small to be seen, and only thought could
discern it. It did not become doubtful, nor even admittedly
speculative, for Epicurus was as sure of atoms as if he had
seen them with his eyes.
--- end quoting A SHORT HISTORY OF ATOMISM
by J. Gregory, Univ. Leeds, 1931, page 4 ---
I read a pretty idea from the mathematician C.S. Peirce who
wrote The Architecture of Theories in 1891
that the universe is crystallizing-out.
--- quoting FOUR PRAGMATISTS by I. Scheffler, 1974 ---
Peirce's The Architecture of Theories...
...would be a Cosmogonic Philosophy. It would suppose
that in the beginning - infinitely remote - there was a chaos
of unpersonalized feeling, which being without connection or
regularity would properly be without existence. This feeling,
sporting here and there in pure arbitrariness, would have
started the germ of a generalizing tendency. Its other
sportings would be evanescent, but this would have a growing
virtue. Thus, the tendency to habit would be started; and
from this, with the other principles of evolution, all the
regularities of the universe would be evolved. At any time,
however, an element of pure chance survives and will remain
until the world becomes an absolutely perfect, rational,
and symmetrical system, in which mind is at last
crystallized in the infinitely distant future.
--- end quoting FOUR PRAGMATISTS ---
The first time I read this in 1975, I disagreed
with Peirce's notion of an infinite future and an infinite
past, for the paragraph seemed inconsistent in various spots.
How can something crystallize-out in an infinite future?
Crystallize is finite, infinite is endless. Intuitively,
I could not reconcile infinite time. And later rereading
Peirce's cosmogony I would argue against this notion of
infinity because I was convinced from Feynman by his book
THE CHARACTER OF PHYSICAL LAW, and seeing Feynman on films
that infinities in quantum physics are trouble, and must
be renormalized out. But I liked the main parts of Peirce's
cosmogony, especially the idea of "at last crystallized".
Later, after I had familiarized myself more with quantum
theory I sensed that Peirce's cosmogony anticipated quantum
ideas, such as the Uncertainty Principle-- "At any time,
however, an element of pure chance survives". And Peirce's
cosmogony has the feel of math in it, yet it does not
mention any math straightforward, such as probability--
"sporting here and there"; geometry-- "symmetrical system",
and "crystallized"; functions--"generalizing tendency";
equations-- "regularities". The math concept of
convergence to a limit is analogous to "at last
crystallized".
I tend to view Peirce's cosmogony above as a precursor to
the idea that the universe is a structure or as Peirce saw
it-- will become a structure itself.
--- start of quote from Encyclopedia Britannica 1992 ---
Lemaitre, Georges (b. July 17, 1894, Charleroi, Belg.--d.
June 20, 1966, Louvain), Belgian astronomer and
cosmologist who formulated the modern big-bang theory,
which holds that the universe began in a cataclysmic
explosion of a small, primeval "super-atom."
A civil engineer, Lemaitre served as an artillery officer
in the Belgian Army during World War I. After the war
he entered a seminary and in 1923 was ordained a priest.
He studied at the University of Cambridge's solar physics
laboratory (1923-24) and then at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Cambridge (1925-27), where he
became acquainted with the findings of the American
astronomers Edwin P. Hubble and Harlow Shapley on the
expanding universe. In 1927, the year he became
professor of astrophysics at the University of
Louvain, he proposed his big-bang theory, which
explained the recession of the galaxies within the
framework of Albert Einstein's theory of general
relativity. Although expanding models of the
universe had been considered earlier, notably by
the Dutch astronomer Willem de Sitter, Lemaitre's
theory, as modified by George Gamow, has become
the leading theory of cosmology.
Lemaitre also did research on cosmic rays and
on the three-body problem, which concerns the
mathematical description of the motion of three
mutually attracting bodies in space. His works
include Discussion sur l'evolution de l'univers
(1933; "Discussion on the Evolution of the Universe")
and L'Hypothese de l'atome primitif
(1946; "Hypothesis of the Primeval Atom")
--- end of quote from Encyclopedia Britannica 1992 ---
The reason I bring up Lemaitre is that several times in
his writings he refers to his Big Bang as the "Primeval Atom"
as a description of the initial Big Bang in its
point-singularity, the universe as a point-complex of
matter radiation. Obviously Lemaitre used "primeval atom"
as a purely descriptive term never claiming that the
present universe was an atom itself. Anyone whoever
claims to have had the Atom Totality theory would
have to make the obvious next step that they in fact
originated the theory by giving details as to what
chemical element the present universe actually is.
I had watched on TV the series COSMOS , and remembered
a paragraph which I looked-up in the book COSMOS
on pages 265-267.
--- quoting from book COSMOS ---
[page 258] And if there are cycles in the years of humans,
might there not be cycles in the aeons of the gods? The
Hindu religion is the only one of the world's great faiths
dedicated to the idea that the Cosmos itself undergoes an
immense, indeed an infinite, number of deaths and rebirths.
It is the only religion in which the time scales correspond,
no doubt by accident, to those of modern scientific
cosmology. Its cycles run from our ordinary day and night
to a day and night of Brahma, 8.64 billion years long,
longer than the age of the Earth or the Sun and about
half the time since the Big Bang. And there are much
longer time scales still.
[page 258] There is the deep and appealing notion that
the universe is but the dream of the god who, after a
hundred Brahma years, dissolves himself into a dreamless
sleep. The universe dissolves with him--until, after
another Brahma century, he stirs, recomposes himself
and begins again to dream the great cosmic dream.
Meanwhile, elsewhere, there are an infinite number of
other universes, each with its own god dreaming the
cosmic dream. These great ideas are tempered by another,
perhaps still greater. It is said that men may not be
the dreams of the gods, but rather that the gods are
the dreams of men.
[pages 265-267] There is an idea--strange, haunting,
evocative- one of the most exquisite conjectures in
science or religion. It is entirely undemonstrated;
it may never be proved. But it stirs the blood. There
is , we are told, an infinite hierarchy of universes,
so that an elementary particle, such as an electron,
in our universe would, if penetrated, reveal itself to
be an entire closed universe. Within it, organized
into the local equivalent of galaxies and smaller
structures, are an immense number of other, much
tinier elementary particles, which are themselves
universe at the next level, and so on forever- an
infinite downward regression, universes within
universes, endlessly. And upward as well. Our
familiar universe of galaxies and stars, planets
and people, would be a single elementary particle
in the next universe up, the first step of another
infinite regress.
[pages 266-267 picture of what appears like a human
transcending an elementary particle universe, and I
quote the caption to the picture] Infinite regression.
A representation of the passage from one universe to
the next larger universe in a Cosmos with an infinite
regression of nested universes. Neither universe is
ours. Painting by Jon Lomberg.
[page 267] This is the only religious idea I know
that surpasses the endless number of infinitely old
cycling universes in Hindu cosmology. What would
those other universes be like? Would they be built
on different laws of physics? Would they have stars
and galaxies and worlds, or something quite
different? Might they be compatible with some
unimaginably different form of life? To enter them,
we would somehow have to penetrate a fourth physical
dimension-- not an easy undertaking, surely, but
perhaps a black hole would provide a way. There may
be small black holes in the solar neighborhood.
Poised at the edge of forever, we would jump off . . .
--- end quoting COSMOS ---
Sagan says the idea of a nested universe of elementary
particles is an old religious idea or conjecture. He does
not mention where it came from and we can see plainly that
no-one took the idea seriously. For if anyone took the idea
seriously then such a person would have worked out a
elementary particle universe in terms of Quantum Mechanics.
And, as I have remarked before, for anyone to claim
discovery of the Atom Totality would have worked out what
chemical element or isotope it would be to make the Atom
Universe of present. The religious idea of nested universes
as elementary particles, is not the Plutonium Atom
Universe as I have done by saying that the whole entire
universe is one structure and that structure is one atom
itself. Where did the nested elementary particle universe
come from? What religion? Because the book COSMOS or TV
series did not mention what religion it was.
The reason I suspect that neither Carl Sagan nor anyone
else could use that religious idea and push it further into
the discovery and creation of the Atom Totality, is because
our modern times has many silly notions which are prevalent
in science and physics (1) particle physics zoo is a conundrum
(2) atoms are not elementary (3) electrons are point
particles (4) General Relativity is worshipped above
Quantum Mechanics, yet GR is a fake (5) Big Bang and black
holes and other exotica fakeries . . etc to name a few.
But for me none of those became traps. For me, atoms were
the last and fundamental and elementary of all particles
because a whole entire hydrogen atom is nested inside a
neutron. And the particle physics zoo confounded
physicists but to me it was all a ghost chase never a
stumbleblock to me.
Notice also that the Brahmin age scale of 8.64 billion
years fits and matches the recently discovered age reckoning
of the Big Bang by Wendy Freedman et al of 8 billion years.
And I disagree with Sagan that it is "by accident" for there
are no accidents in a superdeterministic universe.
When I heard this idea for the first time on TV, I
thought no way for it meant an infinity of worlds which were
not scientifically testable. Later I saw the picture drawn
in the book COSMOS showing an electron as a ball, not as an
electron cloud with no dots of the probability density
distribution of an electron to hint of the galaxies and
stars. This idea written in COSMOS is the closest which
I have seen as a precursor of the Atom Totality theory.
COSMOS hints at, or gives the notion, that an elementary
particle of matter could itself be the observable universe.
The Plutonium Atom Totality theory is not the nested
universes of elementary particles as written in COSMOS.
Because the Atom Totality theory says that there is no
nesting upwards. For the entire universe is one atom.
Perhaps one can go downwards of nested atoms inside other
atoms but one cannot go infinitely upwards because it
stops with the 231Pu Atom Totality. As I stated before
any author of the Atom Totality theory would work out
what chemical element or isotope the universe is at present
and why it is this isotope. I did this on 7 Nov 1990.
From COSMOS, I would change elementary particle to an atom,
since atoms are the most elementary particles and that atom
is specifically a plutonium atom. Electrons, protons,
neutrons have no meaning without atoms. Atoms are the last
elementary particle, since every proton can be associated
with an electron and thus it is a hydrogen atom or a
neutron. The term "elementary" is one of the worst science
stumbling blocks resulting in a plethora of mistakes, a
chaos in physics which is commonly called by the physics
community as the "particle zoo". Atoms are the only
elementary particles. Plutonium 231Pu under this scheme of
with its 94 protons and 94 electrons are 94 hydrogen
atom systems, plus, 137 hydrogen atom systems since each
neutron has a hydrogen atom inside itself. Thus 231Pu is
actually 231 hydrogen atom systems (HYASYS theory see below.)
The biggest problems I find with the COSMOS paragraph is
that it is not based on quantum physics and it involves
infinity, an upward progressive infinity. The basis for
the book Cosmos is
Einstein relativity theory, not quantum theory. And
Einstein's physics intuition failed him miserably versus
the likes of Bohr. Einstein never accepted Quantum Physics
and the future history of physics will be unkind to Einstein
because of his rejection of QM.
An argument which weighs against multiuniverse notion in the
Cosmos is the argument that: suppose another universe
complete in and of itself existed independently next to ours.
The opposition to this other universe is that if inaccessible
and unconnected then there is no way of ever observing or
checking, whether directly or indirectly, if it in fact exists,
and since there is no way of ever discovering whether it
exists then it is not science. Science is opposed to ad hoc
arguments, to adding on extra weight, extra ideas which have
no use other than to plug some gaps of logic. When one
totality answers questions why add on additional
unobservable universes. Although we cannot directly observe
the nucleus or the other 92 electrons of the Plutonium Atom
Totality, we can indirectly observe them, indirect evidence
which support the observational facts such as the fact that
most of the mass is in the nucleus and hidden from us.
The essential ingredient of science is its predictive power,
its capability of predicting the future. The argument of
multiverses unconnected and inaccessible does not increase
the power of prediction, rather it would have a tendency
to decrease the power of prediction because multiverses
could gradually start to act connected and accessible,
making random events happen. Laws and patterns of science
would have a different meaning, or no meaning.
PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY
theory
Historical roles of the steady-state theory and the
big-bang theory in the Atom Totality Universe
by Archimedes Plutonium
this is a return to website location
http://www.newphys.se/elektromagnum/physics/LudwigPlutonium/
Historical role of the steady-state theory
The historical roles of the steady-state theory and big-bang
theory in the context of the Atom Totality Universe.
The Plutonium Atom Totality Theory (PU) was conceived by me on
7NOV1990. PU has its roots back to the World's first most beautiful
idea--The Atomic Fact-- as given by Leucippus and Democritus around
2200 years ago. The essentials of the Atomic Fact is that all things
are made-up of atoms and that there exists a void between atoms.
Then by the 1920's Quantum Mechanics (QM) was built. QM is the
study of atoms. I have proposed the World's second most beautiful
idea, which is the logical conclusion of "all things are made-up of
atoms and the void between atoms," is that the totality, the whole
is also an atom itself and the void is the space of electrons,
electron space of 231Pu. The observable universe, everything we see
is merely the last six electrons, the 5f6, of the isotope 231Pu.
We will never directly see the nucleus of 231@94 where the protons
and neutrons, where over 99% of the mass resides, since it lies in
the nodes, nodal planes of the 5f6. The void between atoms which
Democritus discussed 2200 years ago is just the space of 6 electrons
of a one atom entirety.
The Schroedinger equation of QM represents the electron as a
dot pattern called "the electron cloud". Max Born interpreted the
dot pattern as the probability of finding an electron type ball
at a specific position around the nucleus of an atom. I
reinterpreted Born's interpretation by calling the dot pattern
the observable universe of astronomical objects. The dots of the
electron cloud are the galaxies and smaller dots within the
galaxy dots are stars, and finer grained dots yet are planet
dots and really tiny,tiny dots within planet dots are life dots.
The astronomical objects we view and measure are parts of the
mass of the 93rd and 94th electrons of 231@94 and the older
stars of 20 billion years old are the masses of the older
Thorium Atom Totality.
In the 1920's there were two major competing theories of
cosmology. One was the Steady-State and the other the Big Bang.
The Steady-State was proposed by Jeans in 1920 and later
revised by Bondi, Gold, and Hoyle around 1948. The Steady-State
asserts the universe is the same at all times as well as from
any point within it. Thus, as the universe expands there must
be a continuous creation of matter at such a rate as to maintain
constant mean density throughout the increasing volume. Hence
the Steady-State theory is a universe of continuous creation of
matter and a universe with no beginning or end.
The Steady-State theory was a cosmological theory based on
the so called "perfect cosmological principle," meaning that the
universe is homogeneous in space and time. The idea is that
nothing changes. According to its promoters, Hubble's marker
(I call constants markers) does not change with time. And the
density of galaxies in the universe also remains unchanged.
The observed red-shift expansion of the universe is accounted
for by a force of repulsion. New matter supposedly is being
created continuously, forming new galaxies, so that the
density of galaxies remains the same despite their mutual
recession. Through computation of an average volume equivalent
of an average galaxy according to the Steady-State theory, a
new galaxy is created once every 1000 years. This corresponds
roughly to a rate of creation of matter of one hydrogen atom
per cubic kilometer per year.
The Steady-State theory is not simple and it is intuitively
repulsive because most everything changes. We see change all
around us. Somethings change rapidly while other things change
slowly. Since we see change all around us why should the
totality be changeless and everything around us change? The
Steady-State theory arose from the Uniformity principle in
geology (more accurately it is not a principle, and a better
name for it is the Uniformity Process Algorithm for geology.)
(I believe only the quantum principles can be deemed to be
called principles).
The Steady-State theory of the universe is one of the very
few cases in which a proposed idea for physics comes from a minor
science such as geology. But the Steady-State theory is wrong
and was abandoned or ejected as false by the majority in the
science community with the observed red-shift expansion of the
universe and became the dominant theory after 1965. In the
history of physics, the competing idea to the Steady-State was
the Big-Bang theory.
And, where the cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (MWBR)
disfavored the Steady-State theory and favored the Big-Bang, it
is so laughable and ironic that this same evidence, this very
same evidence of MWBR will dispel and has begun to tear a wide
gap into the theory of the Big-Bang, because of its uniformity
of radiation whereas we see clustering and voids in the
observable universe.
But before I leave discussion of the Steady-State allow me to
note the utilitarian use of this theory which has a feature which
is true. Unlike the Big-Bang, the Steady-State speaks alot about
continuous creation of matter and the violation of conservation
of mass/energy. The Steady-State has the idea of continuous
creation of matter to explain the expansion. Creation of matter
starts with hydrogen for a Steady-State theory and newly created
hydrogen has no momentum and this hydrogen picks-up more momentum
as time goes on from the background matter which already exists
giving the Doppler red-shift.
The PU theory implies that there is an heretofore unknown
radioactive process going on where the universe grows from the
radioactive appearance of 'new' matter emitted from the nucleus
of the Atom Whole. A radioactive isotope of Pu emits alpha,
beta, neutron and many more particles from its nucleus. The Atom
Totality theory accepts the violation of conservation of
mass/energy because of the emitted new particles from the nucleus
of 231PU which makes its new appearance in the 5f6
electron space. The emission of particles from the nucleus of an
Atom Totality is the means and process in which the Atom Universe
grows and will eventually create a new Atom Totality in
the future. This growth mechanism of the PU theory was hinted at
by the tarnished and intuitively repulsive Steady-State and in
this regard, the Steady-State was superior to the Big-Bang
theory.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Historical role of the big-bang theory
The historical context of the big-bang theory in the context
of the Atom Totality Whole Theory.
The Big-Bang was the most prevalent held cosmological theory
when
the PU Atom Whole theory arrived 1990-1995. And the PU theory will
destroy the Big-Bang theory easily and quickly.
The Big-Bang asserts the universe originated from an explosion
of a concentrated matter-radiation complex in which the explosion
expanded outward and matter later condensed to form galaxies, stars,
and planets. This complex started in a state of infinite temperature
and infinite density and other infinities. The bang occurred
approximately 8 billion years ago.
The Big-Bang was proposed by Friedmann and Lemaitre in the 1920's,
and the modern version was developed by Gamow in the 1940's. I note
that Lemaitre even alluded to the Big-Bang theory which he was a
founding pioneer as the "primeval atom". Lemaitre used the words
"primeval atom" to describe the initial point- singularity.
The Big-Bang is based on Einstein's General Relativity theory (GR),
and not QM. The year 1965 is an important year for the Big Bang
because Penzias and Wilson experimentally observed the cosmic
microwave background radiation (MWBR) of about 2.71 K. The MWBR
was viewed as the afterglow, the remnant of the Big-Bang explosion.
The Big-Bang theory is simple, and one could say it is sheer
simplicity, since it starts the universe in a singularity where
all the laws of physics are violated. I can not think of a more
simpler notion than the universe starting as a singularity or a
point. But in this state of simplicity does the Big-Bang theory
connect with other astronomical facts and data? Does a Big-Bang
theory connect with the universal laws of physics? And does it
give meaning and understanding to the fact of life? Does the
Big-Bang say much about why life is surrounded by physical law
and patterns of science?
The Big-Bang starts the universe from a singularity-point. It
sounds more like a math model than a physics theory. What is a
point in physics or science? One can idealize a point in math,
but what about astronomy and physics? Such questions concerning
the Big-Bang immediately lead to intuitively messy questions
such as why did it expand? Are there reasons? And the notions
of chance and chaos play such a large role in a Big-Bang theory,
rather than what we see everyday-- order, pattern, and laws of
physics. The laws of physics which are our everyday experiences.
And the question arises, why life? Does life have any meaning
in a Big-Bang other than chance probabilities? The Big-Bang
gives no explanation other than random chance that a brain
develops which thinks and explains the universe itself. And the
idea that the Big- Bang in the future is probably violent
towards life in further expansion, so thin that life is
impossible, life is thinned-out of existence. Or a Big-Bang
collapses into what has been dubbed the Big-Crunch, everything
crushed-out of existence.
But the obvious falsity to me or anyone who has pondered
this theory of a Big-Bang is that it violates all laws of
physics at the outset. The intuitive argument that I give
against a Big-Bang theory is that at some moment of time the
laws of physics had to come into existence where the universe
obeys these physical laws that we presently observe. And
previous to this moment of time the universe in its Big-Bang
state did not obey these laws. A singularity violates QM.
So then the first question why a Big-Bang, leads to a second
question of why a moment in time where the laws of physics
start to come into existence and form laws to be obeyed and
previous to that moment in time all laws of physics are
violated? Make no mistake about it, singularities, of which
the Big-Bang is the largest singularity ever, violate the
laws of physics. (I wanted to say all the laws of physics,
but that is perhaps not true, because believers of
singularities use GR to arrive at their propaganda,
ignoring and excluding all of QM.)
So a first question put to a Big-Bang theory leads to
another question more messy than the first.
Truth in science when it comes should provide answers
to questions. Truth in science when it comes provides more
answers to difficult questions instead of leaving a lot
more messy questions, or answers that are ad-hoc. A true
theory in science is not awkward and ugly. It is not
intuitively repulsive, or messy like the Big-Bang or the
Steady-State. A true theory, like quantum theory can be
counterintuitive, but it must have a lot of math and use
math to make future predictions. All things are made up of
atoms is QM which is highly mathematical. The Atom Totality
theory embraces and pushes the math of QM further and farther.
A true theory in science has a continuity with known
old truths. The Atomic Fact states that all matter is
composed of atoms. Continuity of fact would then entail--
if all matter is made of atoms then let us ask the obvious
next question. Why not the totality itself? Is it a
structure and can it be an atom?
The Steady-State and the Big-Bang theory have no
connection to the one oldest and most upheld theory in all
of science-- Atomic theory as advanced to our present
Quantum Mechanics of Atoms. Neither the Steady-State nor
the Big-Bang connect with QM where the one was a desire
to impose geology uniformitarianism upon cosmology and
the other was modelled after GR. In all experiments
where it was a battle between GR and QM, QM has always
won. The most famous experiment was the Bell Inequality
on the large scale universe.
The historical role of the Big-Bang is that it
provides a platform of ideas to go into the PU Atom Totality
Theory. The Big-Bang implies a starting time of the
Universe and recently researchers measured the Hubble
constant from the Hubble Space Telescope coming to the
conclusion that the observable universe is far younger at
8 billion years of age than many of its oldest stars at
16 billion years of age. The Big-Bang implies a
primordial time, what the promoters had called the
"singularity". I replace the Big-Bang singularity with
the Neptunium Atom Totality spontaneously fissioned into
our present Plutonium Atom Totality. In a sense, what
the Big-Bang promoters think of as the singularity,
a point, is a crude, inchoate idea of the spontaneous
fissioning from a Neptunium Atom Totality with
93 electrons to our observable universe of the 93rd
and 94th electrons of 231Pu Totality. The Big-Bangers
viewed the cosmos as structureless. The PU theory
claims the universe is a "something", a whole object,
and that object is one atom.
Another salvageable notion of the Big-Bang is the
observation of a red-shift expansion. Recast into atom
space, the red-shift is explained by the Neptunium Atom
Totality expanding into a Plutonium Atom Totality, plus
the space curvature of the last electron orbital of
plutonium.
--- quoting "Physics Handbook Elementary Constants and
Units, Tables, Formulae and Diagrams and Math Formulae"
1987 ---
The atomic radius has been calculated from the
wavefunctions of the elements, and is equal to the
expectation value (mean value) of the distance of
the outermost electron to the nucleus.
Atomic radius of actinium 2.45 x 10^-10 meters
Atomic radius of thorium 2.33 x 10^-10 meters
Atomic radius of protoactinium 2.39 x 10^-10 meters
Atomic radius of uranium 2.34 x 10^-10 meters
Atomic radius of neptunium 2.34 x 10^-10 meters
Atomic radius of plutonium 2.44 x 10^-10 meters
Atomic radius of americium 2.42 x 10^-10 meters
--- end quoting ---
Thus one notices that the universe in the past has
switched from that of expansion to contraction. In a
Plutonium Atom Totality there is a red-shift, but in
a Uranium Atom Totality there was a blue-shift. Facts
of QM, of atoms are truth in the highest.
Another argument against singularities of any kind
follows. The Big Bang is the largest singularity ever
dreamed-up, but there are other lesser alleged
singularities, commonly called black holes. If black
holes existed (that is a big if), the probability
would be largest for them to occur where the
concentration of astronomical matter was the highest.
The concentration of astronomical matter is highest
in the core of galaxies. But the observed data of
star rotations around galaxies dismisses black holes
occupying the center of those galaxies. The star
motion of every observed galaxy implies that the
centers can not contain a black hole.
There are many galactic superstructures. And the
probability of superclustering of galaxies should be
low since the probability of a black hole singularity
occurring where there is alot of superclustering of
mass is high. Black hole singularities would then
absorb or pull-in a large structure such as "The Great
Wall". It is extremely difficult to have black hole
singularities and large structures in the observable
universe simultaneously. Many astronomical
observations confirm our lumpy observable universe.
And it was reported that the Southern Hemisphere of
galactic superclustering is as extensive as the
Northern Hemisphere. Our observable universe has many
large structures and it also has many voids. But
astronomers have never observed a black hole.
I assert that black hole singularities or any
singularity violates the Pauli exclusion principle
and thus can not exist. Singularities violate QM and
hence singularities are science fiction. As no black
hole singularity has ever been observed, plus they
violate QM, so too are larger singularities--the Big
Bang is science fiction.
PU theory postulates that no singularity of the
Big Bang or any black hole exists, or has ever existed.
PU theory is QM based and has nothing to do with GR.
Supernova explosions support PU theory and are
predicted by the PU theory in that a supernova
explosion synthesizes heavier new elements.
Gravitation beyond nucleosynthesis is
nucleodisintegration and PU is violated, thus
gravitation beyond nucleosynthesis is impossible.
The limit of gravitational contraction is the Pauli
exclusion principle. Pulsars are Strange Quark
Matter stars in which there is nucleosynthesis, and
once the astronomical data and observations are
compiled of these objects, then PU theory will be
further supported.
The physicists who used GR to speculate
gravitational contraction into a black hole derived
there conclusions with infinity in their math and a
disregard of the Pauli exclusion principle. A
detailed study of the history of physics reveals that
between the years 1920 and 1995 the physics community
predominantly chose the path of general relativity
theory to make models of the universe, with utter
disregard for quantum mechanics. This is not all too
surprising because a science community before it
discovers the real truth is a bandwagon. (Side-note,
recently there was a contest to rename the Big-Bang.
I proposed the rename should be Big- Bangwagon.)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Now the reason I have put the below historical account along
with this file of Big-Bang is because the physicists that I
have come to teach are all believers of the Big Bang theory.
And no matter how good of work they did for or accomplished in
the name of physics such as Feynman or Lederman, they were
not smart enough to accept the Atom Totality theory. Of course
Feynman died before 7Nov1990 but the Big Bang would have been
his acceptance theory of the cosmos. I take that back, not all
the physicists of my generation are dumb followers of the Big-
Bang, because Dirac mentions how he goes against the Big-Bang
and the stupidier theory of Steady-State in his book DIRECTIONS
IN PHYSICS. This is the explanation of why I include the below
poetical movie on physics in this file of Big-Bang.
-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.engr,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.bio.misc,sci.astro
Subject: Re: movie-film series GREEK FIRE; Lederman and physicists
Date: 2 May 1998 21:02:52 GMT
Organization: PLutonium College
Lines: 358
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (6ig1ls$igf$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
In article (6idv51$ves$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> --- quoting in parts film series GREEK FIRE vol. 4, Art & Science, 1989
> ---
>
> Dr. Leon Lederman, physicist, director Fermilab
> Prof. Raymond Klibansky, Logic and metaphysics, McGill Univ.
>
> ... 6 leptons of which 3 are neutrinos ...
> These are the fundamental particles..
> the world is made of.. fundamental particles..
> so they cannot be cut..
Most every physicist as of this writing believes that a electron or a
proton, or the thousands of particles from the particle zoo are
fundamental particles. They are all wrong. The only fundamental
particles are atoms. The analogy to draw here is a arm, or leg compared
to a human which they came from. To think that a arm or leg is a
fundamental biological entity is as ridiculous as to believe that a
piece of an atom such as an electron, proton, neutron is a fundamental
particle. The particle zoo physicists, because of their
misunderstanding of physics will find an infinity of what they call
fundamental particles.
> Some of those properties are understood, others remain obscure.
> But they too will be understood in time. When that happens,
> physicists will have arrived at the end of their search.
> They will understand not only what the world is made of ,
> but also how it works. They believe they will get there soon.
>
Physicist and Human Civilization has arrived. In fact this happened
7Nov1990 with the discovery of the Atom Totality Universe theory.
> Fermilab is a particle accelerator
> in effect the world's largest microscope.
> ...
> ..also a confidence that it will reveal the truth..
>
This big microscope is more likely to only mess-around, piddle-paddle
with pieces of atoms which these physicists mistakenly believe are
fundamental particles.
> ... began in an ancient Greek town called Miletus 2600 years ago
>
> ... the first scientific question was asked, as far as we can tell,
> and that is " How does the world work?"
> ..how does the world work on the basis of logic
> ..on the basis of ordinary thinking..
> is there a rational basis for the way the world works.
> Greek word "cosmos" is a word for order.
> Is there an order to the thing?
Nice superdeterministic coincidence, in that cosmology is atomic
physics.
> The notion that the world in all of its incredible complexity
> has an underlying simplicity, an overarching principle
> that would explain everything... tremendous breakthrough..
How much more rational, how much more commonsense-ical, how much more
simple can one get when one understands that all things are made up of
atoms, that the total sum of everything is also an atom. If all things
are atoms, then by logic you must conclude that the universe is also
that which all other things are made of.
An overarching principle. Here is the overarching principle. All
things are made of atoms means that the universe is one big atom and
the atom that fits all the numbers of physics and mathematics best is
plutonium. There is your overarching principle.
> What is that overarching principle, and we are still after it.
>
No, it was discovered 7 November 1990. It is called Atom Totality
Universe. It completes the question raised by Thales of Miletus on to
Leucippus and Democritus and Empedocles and Epicurus and Lucretius and
Dalton and the Quantum Mechanics physicists. All things are made up of
atoms, therefore the universe is one big atom.
> The real nature of things tends to disguise itself.
A universe that is one big atom would be disguised in most part. We in
the space of merely the last six electrons, the 5f6, would not see or
observe the most part of the universe of its 137 neutrons of its 94
protons in the nucleus of 231Pu nor its other 88 electron space and
mass. Most of the universe of 231Pu is disguised for its life in the
5f6.
> These were the thoughts of the first scientists, the pre-Socratics.
> Obviously in terms of their answers they seem to be very primitive.
> In terms of the questions they ask, they are giants.
> ... attempt made to reduce the multi-fold .. observations..
> to a simplified, unified explanation accessible to human reason.
>
> The first attempt at a simple-unified explanation was made by Thales of
> Miletus. The world, he claimed, was made of water. Such an answer was
> far from obvious. But the counterintuitive answer was characteristic of
> pre-Socratic thought..
> The search had begun, soon to be advanced in a remarkable way. [ATOMIC
> THEORY]
>
> The leader in all of this was clearly Democritus
> ...humorous man, with a tremendous intellect...
> Great contribution was the atom.. a-tomos, not to be cut..
> Notion that there was a limit to divisibility of matter.
> Tremendous breakthrough...
> ..
Not to be cut, yet modern day physicists believe that every piece
that comes off of atoms is somehow fundamental. They are wrong and
misguided because they have a poor intellect. Democritus had a
tremendous intellect, sad to say that most every physicist that I know
of has a poor intellect, poor intuition and should not even be called a
physicist.
>
> Notion of atom had to be accompanied by another invention, which was
> space.
>
> They move in the Void.... they move through the Void...
Compare a neutron or proton with that of a electron. Compare the
nucleus of an atom with that of an electron. An electron is mostly
space with little mass. A proton is mostly mass with little space. The
night sky as you look at it tonight you will see many white dots. Those
are either galaxies or stars. The night sky is the electron cloud of
5f6 of 231Pu. The mass of stars and galaxies is the mass of the last
six electrons of 231Pu. The space of the universe is merely the space
that these last six electrons occupy. In an Atom Totality, the concept
of space itself is explained. Thus, if Democritus had known modern
physics, he would not even need to have used the concept of space or
what he called the "Void".
>
> He had to have these things in constant motion
> and then he got into the fight with what causes the motion.
> And he wanted to finesse that, and he said, "Motion is"!
> And motion is the natural ingredient of the existence of atoms.
> And that is so close to Galileo and Newton's-first-law
> that it again gives you these bursts of wonder
> how he could have had this kind of imagination.
>
> Empedocles... force... forces .. attraction and repulsion..
> first to recognize that light takes time...
> the wandering of light is something which can be measured in time.
>
> Plato, symmetry of maths was the principle...
> 5 mathematically regular solids, spinning through the universe...
> This theory suggests the deep Greek confidence in an Order underlying
> the universe.
> The world might seem to change but the Order was unchanging and would
> last forever.
>
Mathematics is a subset of physics. Atomic theory dictates what
numerical value pi will have. For example, if we lived in a Tin Atom
Totality instead of a Plutonium Atom Totality, our pi would be
something other than 3.14.... and our e would be something other than
2.71...
Not only have modern day physicists gone astray with their notion of
fundamental but they have gone astray by thinking that mathematics is
more powerful and more meaningful than is physics and the atomic
theory. Again they have strayed from the path of truth. Mathematics is
merely a small subset of the Atomic Theory of physics. Mathematics is
the description of what plutonium is compared to other atoms. The
waistband of 231Pu is 22 subshells in 7 shells of Pu and the growth of
231Pu is 19 occupied subshells in 7 shells, so that in 'Rational number
form' pi is 22/7 and e is 19/7.
> Men's wit grows as they encounter what is present
> Appearances are a glimpse of the obscure
> The order lasted forever but it was hidden from us.
> It hinted to us and whispered to us but we would never see it or touch
> it.
With Atomic Theory , and Quantum Theory and now with the Atom Totality
theory we will indirectly observe the nucleus of our universe.
> An unapparent connection is stronger than an apparent one.
> One day we might hold the overarching principle, but in our minds, not
> in our hands.
>
In one sense we can hold the entire universe in our hand, we can hold
a plutonium atom or a Element 96 atom in our hand. We will have to
discover what isotopes will become the next Atom Totalities. And it is
strange that 231Pu is boxed in by 230Pu and 232Pu which have been
identified, but no scientist has been able to identify 231Pu. This may
be because only the Atom Totality at present can be 231Pu and no
civilization can ever create 231Pu in a laboratory. The Atom Totality
being 231Pu negates the creation or nucleosynthesis of another atom of
231Pu. You see, in order to create another atom of 231Pu would
necessitate that we are in that atom and would thus necessitate their
being an entire duplicate universe to the one present.
> ..Quantum Mechanics.. now used everyday by us.
> And which is the most accurate theory ever written down.
> Can predict, well, everything we know about the world with great
> precision.
> ... Reveal a bizarre counterintuitive world beyond the range of our
> everyday senses.
The only reason that QM is bizarre and counterintuitive is because
the universe itself is an atom. Thus, atom parts (us) trying to
understand other atom parts would encounter seeming strangeness,
seeming illogic, and seeming counterintuitiveness. Once you accept the
fact that the universe is an atom itself then this counterintuitiveness
disappears. And that is the way science has been all along, for when
you discover the correct science it removes strangeness, removes
illogic, and removes counterintuitiveness.
> Even by looking at the particles, we affect them.
> They seem to be in two places at once!
> Or be spontaneously created out of nothing!
> These tracks hint at a reality, but a reality which is hidden from us.
>
What we think is spontaneously created out of nothing is really
coming from the nucleus or the other 88 electrons of 231Pu. The
energetic cosmic rays (protons), some recorded with energies of 10^19
MeV are actually simple protons coming from the nucleus of 231Pu. The
maximum energy of a cosmic ray proton would be 1/6 the sum total energy
of our entire observable universe. Keep in mind that our observable
universe is the 5f6. The maximum energy of a proton cosmic ray is a
proton of 231Pu.
> Quantum Mechanics is a challenge to all orthodoxy...
>
Here the film-movie GREEK FIRE goes into a long discussion of
Aristotle and religion. It is a puzzle to me why religion latched onto
Aristotle with his empiricism when they could have latched onto Plato
whom I consider more amenable to religion with his
realm-of-perfect-being. But religion has never been known for its
exemplary logic.
> This is beautiful; it must be the truth.
> The connection between truth and beauty is pure Greek, and the heart of
> modern science.
> The very names of fundamental particles reflect it.
>
There is no greater beauty than to accept the Atomic Theory and then
to push it one step further into the Atom Totality theory. The Atomic
Theory begs of the Atom Totality theory.
> ..Atoms.. The hidden reality is necessarily strange to us in our
> everyday lives. The voices, old and new, that describe it, still
> challenge our comprehension.
>
> They write down mathematical equations which they get ecstatic about.
> And you know they are having a-lot of fun.
> But, we more experimental-physicists want to know whether their theory
> will predict the results of experiments we are going to do.
> Or, account for experiments we already have done.
> We get a total disconnect.
> ...
As a poet once wrote "confederacy of dunces" who go charging off with
thinking that every 'piece' knocked-out of an atom is some fundamental
particle. And on top of this error they compound the error with
thinking that mathematics will piece it all together.
>
> Yet the Gods have not revealed all things to [humanity] from the
> beginning.
> but by seeking, [humanity] will find out better, in time.
> ...
>
> Let these things be thought of as resembling the truth...
>
> ...
> Nothing occurs at random but everything for a reason, and by
> necessity.
> ...
Bell Inequality with Aspect Experimental Results proves that the
physics of the large scale universe is the same as the physics of small
scale. Implies that the universe is an atom itself. And that the fate
of the universe is superdeterministic. There is no free-will and that
Darwin Evolution theory is a fake.
> There is a basic question and we are always asked that by the decision
> makers who have a morbid interest in how much we are going to spend
> next year.
> When is this going to be over?
> And when are you finally going to answer the question
> that was raised first by Thales of Miletus about 2600 years ago.
It was answered 7 November 1990, but physicists are not bright enough
now to see this or accept it. History shows many examples of the
present social order unable to accept the truth. Sun centered solar
system was known in ancient Greek times, yet it took approximately
2,000 years to rediscover this truth and then to accept it. The Atomic
theory itself was discovered 2,200 years ago but only accepted in the
time of Dalton and thereafter.
> And there is also a feeling I think which comes from more immediate
> experience, that Nature is infinitely complex.
> And I think in many ways that Nature is infinitely complex.
> So that the chemist will never run out of things to do in chemistry.
> And that the biologist will similarly never run out of challenging
> problems in biology.
>
True that Nature abounds in infinities. Infinity of space for an
electron space goes out to infinity, that is, it never stops or ends.
> But the particle physicists allied now with the cosmologists,
> the people who are worried about the evolution of the universe.
> Here we are working very much together on these problems.
That is good, because cosmology is atomic physics once you accept the
Atom Totality theory.
> I think we may come to an answer on how the universe works.
> We will decide we have an answer.. beautiful, simple formula.
> Something you can print on a T-shirt and students can wear it on
> campus.
> And this is the formula which explains fundamentally how the universe
> works.
The formula is simple; it is " 231Pu = universe ".
> How it evolved; how we got here, and the nature of the fundamental
> particles.
>
Once you accept the Atom Totality there needs to be a-lot of work
done on what Isotopes were the previous Atom Totalities and what
Isotopes of the future will be the future Atom Totalities. So the
question of progression involves a-lot of future work by physicists.
And, it is best that the word, term, concept of "evolution" be deleted
out of all future science work as the correct concept is
superdeterministic-progression, or simply progression.
> Another thing I will tell you.
> Of all mortal things, none has birth nor any end in a cursed death.
> But only mingling, an interchange of what is mingled.
> Birth is the name given to these by [humanity].
> ---end quoting in parts the film-series GREEK FIRE vol. 4, Art &
> Science,1989 ---
PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY
UNIVERSE: The theory of everything
Unifies all the sciences and math and everything else
by Archimedes Plutonium
this is a return to website location
http://www.newphys.se/elektromagnum/physics/LudwigPlutonium/
THE UNIFICATION OF PHYSICS, CHEMISTRY, BIOLOGY, AND MATH
A Plutonium Atom Totality unifies physics, chemistry, biology,
and math
because the totality is one atom with a purpose of nucleosynthesis.
One
plutonium atom containing many atom parts whose purpose is to
materialize the
heavier elements after plutonium.
Physics
PU theory contains physics. Physics before 7NOV1990 was
composed of
three separate classes of theories (1) Quantum theory, (2) Classical
physics with Maxwell's equations and special and general relativity,
and (3) the laws of thermodynamics, and in particular the 2nd law.
After 7NOV1990, all of physics is quantum theory and the others are
subsets of quantum theory or algorithms.
PU theory contains quantum theory since quantum theory is a
theory about atoms and PU theory asserts that the totality is an atom
then every feature of quantum theory is a feature of PU theory.
PU theory contains Maxwell's equations which succinctly
systematizes the laws of electricity and magnetism. In all of the
history of human knowledge there have been five outstanding
systematizations. The first was the Atomic Fact by Leucippus,
Democritus, and Epicurus; the second was Euclid with the
Elements ; the third was Maxwell's equations; the fourth was Quantum
Mechanics; the fifth is the 231Pu Atom Whole theory which unifies the
subjects physics, chemistry, biology, and math everything else.
Maxwell's Equations (M.E.) are:
(1) del dot E = (charge density)/(permitivity free space)
(1') (Flux of E through a closed surface) =
(Charge inside)/ (permitivity free space)
(1'') The electric flux through any closed surface is equal to a
constant
multiply the total charge enclosed by the surface.
(1''') Gauss's Law for electricity and contains Coulomb's Law as a
subset
(2) del dot B = 0
(2') (Flux of B through a closed surface) = 0
(2'') The magnetic flux through any closed surface equals 0.
(2''') Gauss's Law for magnetism. No magnetic monopoles
(3) del cross E = - partial derivative B with respect to time
(3') (Line integral of E around a loop) = - derivative (Flux
of B through the loop) with respect to time
(3'') The circulation of electric field around any closed path equals
negative the rate of change of magnetic flux through that path
(3''') If you change a magnetic field, you produce an electric field.
Move a loop through a magnetic field there is a current generated.
(3'''') Faraday's Law of Electromagnetic Induction
(4) cc del cross B = (current density) / (permitivity free space) +
partial derivative E with respect to time
(4') cc (Integral of B around a loop) =
(Current through the loop)/(permitivity free space) +
partial derivative (Flux of E through the loop) with respect to time
(4'') Ampere's Law plus Maxwell's Law of Induction
(4''') If you change an electric field, or produce a current, or both,
you produce a magnetic field.
(4'''') Current flowing through wire generates a magnetic field around
wire
(Oersted discovery). Time rate of change of magnetic field.
(4''''') The circulation of magnetic field around any closed path is
equal
to a constant multiply the electric current passing through that path.
Ampere's
Law
(4'''''') Maxwell added term to Ampere's Law-- Changing electric flux
produces a
magnetic field (displacement current term of: plus also the rate of
change
of electric flux)
The consequence of Maxwell's Equations is that the speed of
light in
space is related completely on electric and magnetic quantities.
Lorentz noticed that when substituting the following transformations in
M.E.:
x' = x - ut
y' = y
z' = z
t' = t - ((ux)/c2)
That M.E. remain the same form when this transformation was
applied.
Poincare then proposed that all physical laws should be such that they
remain unchanged under a Lorentz transformation. The laws of
electromagnetism are not changed but the laws of Newtonian Mechanics
had
to be changed and replaced as such:
Newton's Second Law F = d(mu)/dt
m = m_0
PU theory contains relativity theory where relativity theory is
described by special and general relativity. Special relativity has
2 postulates (1) the laws of physics have the same form in two
reference frames moving at constant velocity with respect to one
another; (2) the speed of light is the same in both of these two
reference frames. As a logical deductive consequence of the 2
postulates of special relativity is that the speed of light is the
maximum speed possible. There is no signal which travels faster
than the speed of light. General relativity stated is that mass tells
space-time how to curve, i.e., mass determines space-time, and
space-time tells mass how to move, i.e., a small particle thrown into
a space-time will follow a curve called a geodesic which is determined
from the space-time. PU theory makes relativity theory an algorithm
for atom space such that gravitation is related through quantum
duality to electromagnetism (these two are not conjugate variables).
Electromagnetism is the space-time description of how the electron
moves around the nucleus thus electromagnetism is a space in the
collapsed wavefunction. Since the electromagnetic interaction
strength is 10^40 times stronger then the gravitational
interaction, gravity is a math algorithm of electromagnetism.
General relativity in gravitation theory is a false algorithm
of PU theory in the fact that the ordering of stars into compact,
nearly spherical objects starts the nucleosynthesis process. GR
is falsified in the very cold region of superfluid helium. Just
as Ohm's law is not a physics law because it is true in only a
range of circumstances.
Special relativity is a subset of PU theory in the fact that
the speed of light is a finite parameter, a reflection of the fact
that the totality is an atom and so the radius, diameter, and
semicircumference of our 94th observable electron orbit are all
finite parameters. The electromagnetic interaction between the
nuclear protons and the 94th electron of the Plutonium Atom
Totality constitutes the speed of light.
PU theory contains thermodynamics and in particular the 2nd
law.
One statement (a) of the 2nd law is that heat cannot flow from a cold
body to a hot body. I will use the case of a star. A star generates
tremendous amount of heat and energy from the result of hot
thermonuclear fusion of the less heavy element hydrogen transformed
into the more heavy element helium. This heat and energy as a result
of nucleosynthesis of a fusion star (hot body) is radiated out into
space (cold body) which is the 2nd law of thermodynamics-- that heat
always flows from a hot body to a cold and never the reverse.
A second statement (b) of the 2nd law of thermodynamics in
terms
of entropy (disorder) is-- the entropy (disorder) of the observable
universe is always increasing. Now taking the same case of a star
which is nucleosynthesizing hydrogen into helium (less order to more
order) via thermonuclear fusion and radiating energy out into space
(increase in disorder) appears mutually contradictory. This alternative
statement of the 2nd law appears to contradict nucleosynthesis.
Life appears to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Why should
life exist at all, if disorder is increasing? The 2nd law in terms of
entropy is a statistical law, which means that life is not ruled out,
but that life has a small probability of occurring.
The subject of thermodynamics shows the two statements (a) and
(b)
of the 2nd law are transformable one to the other. But in the case of
a star there appears a contradiction in that entropy is a quantity of
disorder and yet the synthesis of heavier elements is an increase in
order. The 2nd law in terms of entropy appears to be violated also
with biology, in that living things are progressing into ever more
complex and orderly systems. Why should life, an ordered system,
come into existence at all if disorder increases?
A different concept for increase in entropy is energy
dispersal.
The 2nd law stated in terms of energy dispersal is-- the energy of
the observable universe is dispersing. Life on Earth could not start
or flourish if the Sun did not disperse its huge amounts of energy
into space and especially to Earth.
A chemistry definition of the 2nd law of thermodynamics
follows.
There is a direction in the way chemical events occur. When a
chemical process occurs spontaneously in one direction, it is
nonspontaneous in the reverse direction.
It is possible to state the 2nd law of thermodynamics in these
many different forms, but they all relate back to the same idea
about spontaneity. In any spontaneous process the entropy of the
observable universe increases.
Thermodynamics is statistical mechanics and quantum mechanics
is statistical mechanics and so there is a connection between the two.
Time and temperature both are statistical numbers in relation to atoms.
It is not coincidence that the quantum mechanical factor is
interchangeable or transformable with the statistical mechanics factor.
Radioactivity is connected.
Quantum mechanics gives the factor where t is the time t3:
e^(2piiEt/h) . Statistical mechanics gives the factor: e^(E/kT)
where T is the temperature. Then it is seen that
2piiE t is proportional to E
h kT .
Radioactivity gives the factor for the rate of growth and decay
e^-lt, where t is the time t_2. The proportionality of quantum
mechanics and statistical mechanics suggests time is inversely
proportional to temperature. In this textbook in association with
the calculation of the number of neutrons or atoms in our observable
electron universe, I use this fact of time inversely proportional
to temperature. These statistical factors are mysteriously
interchangeable from quantum mechanics to statistical mechanics, but
if the totality is taken as an atom then the mystery disappears.
Time t_2 in a quantum PU theory totality is related to
temperature
inversely because time is the accounting of all the atoms and the
arrangement of those atoms, and temperature is the accounting and
arrangement of those atoms. As the time t_2 of the totality progresses
the temperature varies inversely proportionally in the transformation
from a less heavy element atomic universe into a more orderly atom
universe of a heavier element. There is more order in a uranium atom
totality than there is in a helium atom totality.
Now for a quantum PU theory description of the 2nd law of
thermodynamics, where the 2nd law is a subset of quantum theory. The
2nd law of thermodynamics is now explained as a subset of
radioactivities.
If a slab of 100% pure uranium isotope is the experimental sample
for some long time into the future, then inspection of this uranium
slab
will show that most of the atoms have turned into lead, neon, helium,
or
other stable elements via radioactive decay of the original uranium
isotope. Entropy is the fact that all of the atoms started out with
atomic number 92 (order) and now most are a lower atomic number
(disorder) of lead and helium, but a few of those atoms in the slab are
now neptunium and plutonium via radioactive growth, where some neutrons
of the original uranium isotope atoms transformed into a proton and
electron which were captured by the uranium isotope. Now the puzzle
completely dissolves of how can life occur in an observable universe
alongside the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Life is formed in atoms of
higher atomic number. Order is a complementary duality to disorder,
where there is one there has to be the other, where there is
radioactive decay, there is radioactive growth. The 2nd law of
thermodynamics is a quantum symmetry, a mirror reflection of
radioactivities of neutron materialization+growth+decay.
If the slab was pure hydrogen then there is no radioactive
decay,
since there exists no atom lower than hydrogen. But there is
radioactive growth in pure hydrogen since neutron materialization
will transform some of the hydrogen atoms. The progression of
radioactivities starts with a neutron since a neutron radioactively
decays into a hydrogen atom. Hydrogen is the lowest element.
After hydrogen comes deuterium via spontaneous neutron
materialization, which is a hydrogen isotope which has 1 proton,
1 neutron, and 1 electron. After deuterium comes tritium, again
via spontaneous neutron materialization, which is a hydrogen
isotope which has 1 proton, 2 neutrons, and 1 electron. After
tritium comes helium.
If the experiment started out with pure helium, then after a
very long time, then it will be mostly hydrogen, with some deuterium,
and tritium atoms present. There will be a small number of atoms of
higher atomic number than helium, such as lithium and beryllium atoms,
having resulted from radioactivities of spontaneous neutron
materialization in helium atom nuclei which then radioactively grow
into lithium and beryllium atoms.
Thus the 2nd law of thermodynamics is a subset of
radioactivities.
The 2nd law before this theory was incomplete and looked at only the
predominate disorder side, not taking into account that where there
is disorder that there has to exist order as quantum duals. The 2nd
law before this theory focused only on the decay property of
radioactivity and not recognizing either radioactive spontaneous
neutron
materialization or radioactive growth. Quantum PU theory thus subsumes
the 2nd law of thermodynamics as a subset of radioactivities.
The 1st law of thermodynamics is the conservation of
mass-energy,
which quantum PU theory asserts is false. PU theory asserts that all
the conservation laws are false. Laws of duality are the truth.
Chemistry
PU theory contains chemistry. PU theory is a plutonium atom
which is a chemical element which contains chemical elements as parts.
Chemistry is physics in large part due to the exclusion principle of
quantum theory. Chemistry is explained by quantum mechanics of
physics.
All matter in the observable universe is made of the chemical elements
of the periodic chart. Biology is composed of elements. If all matter
in the observable universe is made out of chemical elements then it is
an easy and commonsense assertion that the totality is a chemical
element. Plutonium is the last naturally occurring measurable element
found in the observable universe in trace amounts associated with
uranium ores. What is the totality doing with these chemical elements
and the answer is transmuting less heavy elements into more heavy
elements. Nucleosynthesis is the purpose of the totality.
Biology
Biology is the study of life, and life is a collection of
atoms,
thus PU theory contains biology. Also, biology is subsumed by
chemistry and chemistry is subsumed by physics. There is a connection
of nucleosynthesis and biology which PU theory implies. PU theory
theorizes that biology is an ordering process of nucleosynthesis.
Math
Numbers exist, because atoms are numerous and atomic numbered.
Geometry occurs because atoms have geometrical structure and the
space of an electron is the space of geometry. An atom totality
speaks the language of math, where atoms and subatomic particles
mirror reflect numbers and math. Life can recognize the presence
of its Maker in the language of math. Our Makers Laws are always
obeyed, because the Laws are laws of physics written in the language
of math. Physical laws are written in math and physical law is
quantum physics.
Since the totality is an atom then the meaning of all of math
and all math numbers are derivative of the Atomic Fact-- all matter
is made-up of atoms, and the Atom Totality-- the whole is also an
atom for which plutonium is the most likely candidate. And the
space between atoms (matter) which in ancient Greek times was
called the void is just the space of 5f6 electrons, the last 6
electrons of plutonium. Our observable universe is just the space
of the last 6 electrons of 231@94. Thus math is just physics
without the experimentation.
As the future progresses, physics and math will more and more
converge into one subject. It is only by convention and convenience
that we separate physics from math, or chemistry from biology. With
the Atom Totality all subjects are the study of atoms. Quantum
Mechanics (QM) is at the pinnacle of all subjects because it is
closest to the study of atoms. Math now will modify its axioms to
accord with the principles of QM.
Again I repeat what math is. Math, or all the subjects that are
thought of as maths which includes math logic is physics only
without the experimental evidence. Math is physics and physics
is math. The only difference between the two is that math relies
only on pencil and paper for experimental proof and physics
relies on machinery experimental proof.
231Pu Atom Totality theory
Particle and Wave succession of Atom Totalities
by Archimedes Plutonium
this is a return to website location
http://www.newphys.se/elektromagnum/physics/LudwigPlutonium/
THE PARTICLE SUCCESSION OF ATOM TOTALITIES
I give two outlines of atom totality, the first outline sees
atoms in the collapsed wavefunction, that is, atoms as particles.
Thus the first succession is a particle succession and is the one
which is perhaps easiest to see since we see stars, planets, and
objects as collections of atom particles.
The first succession outline follows as such. The totality
started out as a hydrogen atom. Call it Hydrogen Atom Totality,
having complementary duals of totality- to parts which is neutron-
to hydrogen atom, since a neutron contains a whole hydrogen atom
system inside of it. Thus a subatomic particle carries a whole
atom of hydrogen inside itself. This is part - whole duality.
In the beginning of everything, in a Hydrogen Atom Totality,
it is neutron complementing hydrogen, because a neutron
radioactively transmutes into a hydrogen atom and a hydrogen
atom is radioactively transmutable back into a neutron. A
hydrogen atom induces spontaneous neutron materialization. A
neutron is a part of every atom, since every atom has at least
1 proton plus 1 electron, and a hydrogen atom is a part of a
neutron.
The totality started as a hydrogen atom, then it would make
other neutrons via radioactive spontaneous neutron
materialization which transform into more hydrogen atom parts
and some hydrogen atoms spontaneously materialize neutrons which
radioactively grow into helium atom parts. And then some helium
atom parts radioactively growing into lithium atom parts, and
subsequently this Hydrogen Atom Totality which has within
itself hydrogen atom parts, helium atom parts, and some lithium
atom parts until at some progressive quantum time t_2, a
beryllium atom materializes which instantaneously quantum jumps
by the strong nuclear interaction the Hydrogen Atom Totality
via spontaneous fission into a Helium Atom Totality.
Then the Helium Atom Totality, again via radioactive
spontaneous neutron materialization would make a large number
of hydrogen atom parts, helium atom parts, lithium atom parts,
beryllium atom parts, boron atom parts, until at some
progressive quantum time t_3, a carbon atom materializes
which instantaneously quantum jumps the Helium Atom Totality
via the strong nuclear interaction of radioactive spontaneous
fission remaking the Helium Atom Totality into a Lithium Atom
Totality, and so on. On up to a Neptunium Atom Totality
which at some progressive quantum time t_94, one atom of
element 188 materializes which instantaneously quantum jumps
the Neptunium Atom Totality by the strong nuclear interaction
of radioactive spontaneous fission into the present Plutonium
Atom Totality.
Radioactive spontaneous fission will occur to the
Plutonium Atom Totality when at some quantum jump time t_95
the totality will have materialized atoms on up through and
including element 190. At that far distant future time when
element 190 is materialized by life, then this element 190
will radioactively spontaneously fission into two atoms of
element @95, one of the atoms will make the Element 95 Atom
Totality and the other byproduct of the radioactive
spontaneous fission reaction is the element 95 atom
identical to the atom totality but contained inside the
Element 95 Atom Totality. Thus Bohr complementary principle
is satisfied, since you need two identical atoms for
existence. Whether this identical element 95 is a monopole
or has some special and unique characteristics is as yet
unknown by me.
The outline in this particle sketch is a quantum
picture of atom parts within atom totalities and the atom
particle succession of atom totalities. Time is derivative
of what the atoms do, and thus time itself is a mirror
reflection-- a quantum symmetry. Successive atom
totalities make predominantly hydrogen atoms via the
radioactive decay of neutrons. Atom totalities succeeded
through spontaneous neutron materialization until in the
succession of atom totalities we reach the present
Plutonium Atom Totality with the proportion of abundance
of chemical elements as we observe them. The Plutonium
Atom Totality brought forth life for the purpose of
nucleosynthesizing the transplutonium atoms. Life is a
mirror reflection of the physics of 5f6 electron orbital.
Life is within the 5f6.
THE WAVE SUCCESSION OF ATOM TOTALITIES
The second succession outline tries to picture atoms in the
uncollapsed wavefunction using the superposition principle
where every electron of every atom goes out to infinity (they
are not particles but waves) and every atom is superpositioned
onto every other atom, when linearly added-up, and the net
result of all the atoms existing when linearly added-up is
that of one single atom of 231Pu, the Plutonium Atom Totality.
This second outline is much more difficult to see since we
are used to seeing physical reality as atoms materialized
from the collapse of the wavefunction. This second outline
has a continuous property to it. Thus this second outline
is a wave succession of atom totalities.
This second succession outline as pictured is best
imagined by thinking of every atom as an infinite wave and
different atoms such as iron or lead having distinctly
different waves. When every atom wave, is added linearly
onto all other atom waves, then the resultant of adding all
the waves of atoms is the wave of 1 plutonium atom 231Pu.
The linear addition of all the atom waves is a successor
function since atoms come into existence from radioactive
spontaneous neutron materialization, so then some atoms
materialize before other atoms. Some distant time in the
future the math and physics by whatever life is present
will have equations to simulate when and what specific
atoms can come into existence. The linear addition of all
atom waves is a progression of atoms and thus the continual
adding marks out times of Radioactivity and times of
Electromagnetism (two distinct times), and which results
in a 231Pu atom wave. This picture is complicated by the
fact that some of the atoms have either boson or fermion
properties. All of the atoms are superpositioned
simultaneously and when we measure something such as the
age of the observable electron universe or the inverse
fine-structure variable as 137, we most clearly see the
predominant statistical average of 231Pu over all the
other radioactive elements after bismuth and we see the
inverse fine-structure variable as predominantly 137.
A good common-day analogy of every atom as a wave and
the successive stacking of all the atoms (such as the
stacking of coins where the roll of coins is the net result)
gives the net result of 1 atom of 231Pu atom.
Perhaps someone would want to argue that the totality
is not a plutonium atom but instead another element as the
atom totality such as a thorium atom since the thorium
isotope 232@90 is the most abundant radioactive element
after the last stable element of bismuth and has a half-life
of 1.4 x 10^10 years. Thorium 232@90 has the longest
lived half-life to all modes of radioactive decay of all
the elements after the stable element of bismuth. If the
present observable universe was an electron of a Thorium
Atom Totality, then from cosmic measurement of the age of
the observable universe, an estimate from the oldest known
stars in the universe somewhere around 1.6 x 10^10 years,
we would have another approximately 1.2 x 10^10 years
remaining. The longest lived half-life to all modes of
radioactive decay for uranium is the isotope 238U at
4.46 x 10^9 years. If we suppose the age of the observable
universe is the same age as that the half-life of the
isotope 238@92 at 4.46 x 10^9 years. And from the
measurement of uranium ore samples we get the Earth's age
at about 5 x 10^9 years, then we would have a little less
than 4.46 x 10^9 years remaining. The number pi comes out
of thorium and uranium just as well, since both thorium and
uranium have 22 s,p,d,f subshells in 7 shells. But now,
with the number e comes some trouble, because the number e
cannot come out of thorium and uranium easily. For thorium
has 4 less electrons than plutonium, and uranium has 2 less,
thus to stretch the 90 electrons of thorium and the 92 of
uranium into 19 occupied subshells at any moment of time is
too low of a probability for thorium and uranium. Then
there are the two unitless markers of the fine-structure
marker and the unitless number for the mass ratio of the
proton to the electron. Both fall-out easily for plutonium,
never thorium nor uranium. The mass ratio of the proton
to electron is 6pi^5 and for plutonium the last electron
is in the 5f6 orbital, thus 5f6 -> 6pi^5. The last
electron of thorium is 6d2 or 5f2, and for uranium it is
5f4.
An argument against the idea of a 232@90 atom or
238@92 totality is that both act bosonlike for electrons,
protons, and neutrons, but a 231@94 atom totality acts
bosonlike for electrons and protons in aggregate and acts
fermionlike for its neutrons in aggregate because of the
odd number of 137. I speculate that an atom totality
which is bosonlike for neutrons would not have a
radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization
generating mechanism.
The age of our electron observable universe depends
on the strong nuclear interaction of radioactive
spontaneous fission, and not radioactive decay modes
such as alpha or negative beta particles, since in an
atom totality, the radioactive decay modes act as a
generator for particle materialization. Whenever the
Plutonium Atom Totality radioactively decays an alpha
particle or negative beta particle, then that is the
radioactive spontaneous materialization of another
helium nucleus or electron inside our last electron
observable universe. The uniform cosmic gamma rays and
cosmic protons observed are in fact observations of
the 231Pu nucleus increasing the mass and matter of
our observable 93rd and 94th electron space which we
see as the night sky.
Every atom in the totality is important. If one
atom, say any one, take for example a particular atom
of arsenic, or a particular atom of hydrogen and if
this particular atom had not materialized or come into
existence when and where it did so, then the electron
observable universe, or even the totality itself
would not exist. Every atom is interconnected with
every other atom, and if any particular one atom did
not exist then none can exist. This is
Superdeterminism as proved by Bell Inequality and
Aspect Experimental results. A quick analogy to maths
to make this self-evident. Pick any Whole Real number
that you want, and if it did not exist, if it did not
occur then all of maths does not exist. For every
number in maths is interconnected and depends on
every other number. Everything is interconnected
as shown true physically by the Bell inequality and
the Aspect experimental results. And while I am on
the subject of interconnected I want to make another
analogy with maths, i.e., the logarithmic spiral.
Imagine the center of the logarithmic spiral as a
Hydrogen Atom Totality and as the logarithmic spiral
spirals out that it progressively changes into
successive atom totalities. The logarithmic spiral
is like a math picture of the wave succession of
atom totalities where its end is open ended and
radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization is
seen as the generator of the spiraling curve. The
logarithmic spiral is a quick picture of every
atom that exists and will materialize in the
future, since the spiral is open-ended. The
logarithmic spiral is the equiangular spiral, and
if any point on the curve or under the curve--the
area of the curve, was out of place or nonexistent,
then it is no longer an equiangular spiral, no
longer a logarithmic spiral. Every atom is
interconnected with every other atom, none are
out of place. If any one atom was out of place
or missing then the totality would not exist.
Every atom, where it is and what it is, and when
it is, is important.
The logarithmic spiral is one of the best
illustrations of interconnectedness. And the
logarithmic spiral is an excellent math analogy for
the meaning of superdeterminism. Think of every
atom in the totality and think of every new neutron
that is radioactively spontaneously materialized
or will be materialized in a future time. Think
of the area, the set of points-- points taken as
atoms, under the logarithmic spiral curve, as
every atom already materialized. This area under
the curve is our observable electron universe. Then,
in order for the logarithmic spiral curve to
continue equiangular, every atom, which includes
every atom in everything living, has to be in an
exact and precise location (superposition) in the
totality, and every new atom which is materialized
or will be materialized must come at a precise
location and only at an exact time. Every atom,
hence everything, must have an exact, a math
precise location in time, in order for the
logarithmic spiral to curve equiangular. The
Plutonium Atom Totality is superdeterministic
and completely interconnected.
Antimatter issue in Atom Totality
by Archimedes Plutonium
this is a return to website location
http://www.newphys.se/elektromagnum/physics/LudwigPlutonium/
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups:
sci.physics.particle,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.astro
Subject: Atom Totality theory prediction on antimatter floating about
Date: 24 Jan 1999 08:28:38 GMT
Organization: Atom Totality theory on antimatter freely floating in
space
Lines: 101
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <78eljm$c73$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
In article <78c3se$4hm$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> I should be able to prove from the Atom Totality theory whether
> antimatter floats around in space.
The Big Bang theory is quiet about antimatter. The Big Bang theory
would predict that the universe should be equally populated between
matter and antimatter. At the moment of the Big Bang, equal amounts, or
nearly equal amounts of antimatter should have been produced along with
ordinary matter. The proponents of the Big Bang theory have looked to
the astronomers and have found that the universe seems populated 100%
by only matter with no antimatter. This does not seem to worry the
proponents of the Big Bang theory. And why should it for they have a
huge list of discrepancies between theory and observations.
So, let me discuss what the Atom Totality theory has to say and
predict about Antimatter. In the Atom Totality, the observable universe
is merely the last 6 electrons, their masses and their spaces. For
231Pu, the last 6 electrons is called the 5f6. The 5f6 has 6 electrons
in 3 orbitals. Two electrons share an orbital. Thus our observable
universe is this.
5f6
94th electron + 93rd electron in 3rd orbital
92nd electron + 91st electron in 2nd orbital
90th electron + 89th electron in 1st orbital
In the mid 1990s when news of two different ages for the universe was
hot news (Freedman versus Sandage) , on the front covers of science
magazines, two different ages could never be reconciled within a Big
Bang theory. But in a Atom Totality theory, the 20 billion year old
universe is merely the age of the 2nd orbital and the 7 billion year
old universe is merely the age of the 3rd orbital. In an Atom Totality
we have 'layered ages' for galaxies and stars. And in our own backyard,
the Solar System, it is highly likely that the age of the Sun and inner
planets is a younger age than Jupiter and the gas giants and outer
planets.
If you think it was a big science news item of the two ages for the
universe, wait for the day when scientists report that the Sun is 20
billion years old as well as Mercury, Venus, Earth and Jupiter is only
7 billion years old. That would be big news and cause a huge debate in
the sciences. But it would all be covered by the Atom Totality theory.
But I am not wanting to discuss age here, I want to discuss
Antimatter and Matter.
When electrons share an orbital, one of the electrons takes a
Riemannian space and the other electron takes up a Lobachevskian space.
Two electrons do that in order to restore as close as possible to
Euclidean 3-dimensional geometry. But what happens to the mass-matter
of each electron?
In physics we have experiments that show us a 'Dirac Sea'. This is
where each particle in physics seems to have its anti-particle. Thus,
if we focused on an electron, we experimentally obtain an electron,
then, by further experiments, we can obtain a positron, the Antimatter
particle of the original electron. So, question, is the Dirac Sea of
anti-particles to all of the particles, is that a drawing forth of the
mass-matter of the shared electron in an orbital?
Suppose the Solar System of its Matter is part of the 94th electron
space and 94th electron mass-matter. Then, is the Dirac Sea the
mass-matter of the 93rd electron which is sharing the same orbital with
the 94th electron?
And, what about the mass-matter of the other electrons of the 5f6?
What about the mass-matter of the 92nd and 91st and 90th and 89th
electrons?
In the physics experiments and laboratories, we draw forth
Antimatter from the Dirac Sea, but with an enormous cost in energy. In
the Atom Totality theory, we are drawing forth mass-matter of the 93rd
electron that shares the 3rd orbital with the 94th electron.
It appears in the Atom Totality theory that Matter and Antimatter
exist in their own realms, their own separate and individual spaces.
And that it requires energy to pierce and enter into the other electron
realm.
But the entire 5f6 is observable. So, if it requires energy to pierce
and penetrate the 93rd electron, perhaps it requires no energy to
penetrate the mass-matter and space of the 92nd and 90th electron. So,
the question would be, is the mass-matter of the 92nd and 90th Matter
or Antimatter compared to the 94th? My intuition would tell me that the
mass-matter of the 92nd and 90th electrons are ordinary Matter, the
same as the 94th. And my intuition would say that the two ages of the
universe as reported by Freedman and Sandage of 7 billion and 20
billion years, respectively, accords with the age of the 94th and 92nd
electron ages, respectively.
As to the question can there exist free floating Antimatter in the
space of the 94th? Perhaps the sharing of electrons in orbitals is so
effective that no free floating antimatter makes its prescence in the
other electron. And that the sharing of electrons is an "effective
separation". Or, the other possibility, in that the 6 electrons, like
lobes take up a region of the observable universe such that there is no
separation and that we can witness 6 realms in all, and 3 of which are
Antimatter. The astronomers may answer that question before the atomic
physicists or quantum physicists peering and probing into the electron
structure of plutonium.
----------------------------------------------------------
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups:
sci.physics.particle,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.astro
Subject: Re: Atom Totality theory prediction on antimatter floating
about
Date: 24 Jan 1999 08:55:44 GMT
Organization: wondering about Antimatter freely floating
Lines: 46
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <78en6g$cv3$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
In article <78eljm$c73$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> As to the question can there exist free floating Antimatter in the
> space of the 94th? Perhaps the sharing of electrons in orbitals is so
> effective that no free floating antimatter makes its prescence in the
> other electron. And that the sharing of electrons is an "effective
> separation". Or, the other possibility, in that the 6 electrons, like
> lobes take up a region of the observable universe such that there is no
> separation and that we can witness 6 realms in all, and 3 of which are
> Antimatter. The astronomers may answer that question before the atomic
> physicists or quantum physicists peering and probing into the electron
> structure of plutonium.
I am cheating in this thread, in that I cannot predict using the Atom
Totality theory, whether free floating Antimatter will be discovered. I
say that not because of shortcomings of the theory, but only because of
shortcomings of facts and data concerning electron orbitals, sharing of
electrons and knowledge of the 5f6 of plutonium. The Atom Totality is
very rich that if I were supplied with some facts I would be able to
predict whether Antimatter floats freely or not.
And in the above writing, there are perhaps many errors. For one, it
seems that new Atom Totalities are born from alpha decay of the old
Atom Totality. So instead of 6 realms, only 3 realms are
distinguishable. And another possible big error is that perhaps the
'Dirac Sea' of positron to electron creation is not a drawing forth of
the mass-matter of the 93rd, but rather is a drawing forth of the space
of the 93rd electron. Perhaps in sharing of orbitals by two electrons,
the mass of each unites into one? And if that is true, then the
observable universe of the 5f6 mass-matter is all of the mass-matter of
its 6 electrons. And if that be the case, then there is no Antimatter.
So, you see, I have cheated in not giving a clear prediction as to
whether astronomers will find Antimatter freely floating about. I
cannot make that prediction at this time simply because I do not know
enough about electron orbital sharing. The atomic physicists have not
given us enough facts and data and knowledge on electron orbital
sharing, especially 5f6, to allow me to predict using the Atom Totality
theory.
Postscript: just reading the 23JAN99 SCIENCE NEWS tonight, I see that
scientists only recently added on more knowledge as to water molecule
bond structure and that the hydrogen bond on water is partly covalent.
Such is recent knowledge, but imagine the difficulty of better
understanding of the 5f6 structure of plutonium and electron orbital
sharing.
-------------------------------------------------------
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups:
sci.physics.particle,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.astro
Subject: Re: Matter-Antimatter power plants Re: Proving that all
species,
even humans, go extinct
Date: 24 Jan 1999 09:34:05 GMT
Organization: positrons from the Dirac Sea is the space of 93rd
not the mass of 93rd
Lines: 68
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <78eped$e7p$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
A non-scientist who should be exclusively in soc.history.science not
the physics newsgroups writes:
> RELEASE: 97-83
>
> ANTIMATTER CLOUDS AND FOUNTAIN DISCOVERED IN THE MILKY WAY
>
> Scientists using data from an instrument on NASA's Compton Gamma
> Ray Observatory (CGRO) have discovered two unexpected clouds of antimatter
> in the Milky Way Galaxy which scientists call "antimatter annihilation
> radiation."
That is not really freely-floating-antimatter is it, for it is the
production of antimatter from given ordinary matter, the same as what
is done in a laboratory.
News of a star or galaxy that is anti-hydrogen and anti-helium and
anti-other-atoms is confirmational news of freely floating Antimatter.
The production of positrons is perhaps only the probing of the space
of the 93rd electron. See my posts on the Atom Totality prediction of
Antimatter. To be brief, what I am saying is that positrons do not
count as Antimatter. Positrons are more spacelike than they are
masslike. Of course, to a nonscientist, he would stretch the above out
of proportion and even into falsehoods.
> They note that the gamma-ray observations permit us to see
> clearly, for the first time, a new part of our galaxy made of a hot column
> of gas filled with antimatter electrons (also called positrons by
> scientists), and they argue that the antimatter electrons come from newly
> created elements produced by exploding stars formed near the center of our
> galaxy.
Positron production in exploding stars such as supernova are normal
occurrences. Same as the production of neutrinos by supernova is a
normal occurrence. So, the sighting of a positron cloud does not count
as a sighting of large-scale-Antimatter in the universe. What qualifies
for that would be the sighting of a star that was composed of
anti-hydrogen, anti-helium, and anti-other-elements. Such a sighting
would prove that freely-floating Antimatter exists in the observable
universe.
Positrons are more geometry and space. An electron, unlike a proton
is more geometry and space. And so, positrons are more like neutrinos
or photons than they are of matter-particle. And positron production is
a cost in energy of the ordinary regular Matter around the site of
positron production.
> Antimatter cannot be found in large quantities on
> Earth because it would instantly vaporize anything it came into contact
> with. All evidence points to the universe being composed almost entirely
> of normal matter, though opinions differ on this.
Yes, even I, the discoverer of the Fusion Barrier Law seems to have
not fathomed the mysteries of that law, since just a few days ago I was
remarking that if freely floating antimatter existed in space such as
lumps of antimatter coal, then they could be harnessed to fuel a
Matter-Antimatter Electricity Power Plant. But on closer thought of the
Fusion Barrier Law and of engineering, even that would be impossible.
Imagine if antimatter coal floated around Earth. Could we engineer a
machine that would convert the antimatter coal into electricity? I
doubt it, for it would disintegrate the machine in quick order. It
would be a more horrible mini H-bomb machine, for at least the H-bomb
machine would last several blasts before ruined. The Antimatter machine
would destroy the machine faster.
So, once again, the Fusion Barrier Law wins.
-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups:
sci.physics.particle,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.astro
Subject: #4 Fusion Barrier Law prohibit Matter-Antimatter power
plants? positrons do not count as Antimatter in space
Date: 25 Jan 1999 07:58:07 GMT
Organization: Fusion Barrier Law prohibit Antimatter-Matter power
plants??
Lines: 31
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <78h86f$lg0$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
In article <78eped$e7p$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> News of a star or galaxy that is anti-hydrogen and anti-helium and
> anti-other-atoms is confirmational news of freely floating Antimatter.
>
> The production of positrons is perhaps only the probing of the space
> of the 93rd electron. See my posts on the Atom Totality prediction of
> Antimatter.
Let me review the history if my memory is accurate.
Positron found by Anderson. In fact, the positron is easily created
by the slamming together of any matter, and in the slamming you yield
positrons
Antiproton took longer to discover, circa 1950s by Segre.
AntiHydrogen, by Dehemelt, and does not last long, and contained in
some vacuum. About a 1,000 times more energy to make than a positron.
AntiHelium, has it been manufactured?
Positrons are in many particle collisions because they satisfy charge
and lepton conservation rules. One could say that positrons are as
common as neutrinos in particle reactions.
In the reaction of proton slam into electron
can you get a antiproton + positron ? I suspect not, for a violation of
baryon number in that a + baryon number on left and a -baryon number on
right.
Isotope 231Pu is boxed in by 230Pu
and 232Pu
Something strange about isotope 231Pu when and if
discovered
by Archimedes Plutonium
this is a return to website location
http://www.newphys.se/elektromagnum/physics/LudwigPlutonium/
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Isotope 231Pu is boxed in; Is 231Pu special??
Date: 4 Aug 1996 23:22:49 GMT
Organization: PLutonium College
Lines: 73
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (4u3bc9$b...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Isotope 231Pu is boxed in by 230Pu and 232Pu. And checking the CRC,
77th ed. p 11-137 indicates that plutonium isotopes of 228Pu, 229Pu,
230Pu, 232Pu etc have been manufactured and confirmed to exist.
However, 231Pu is absent. Does 231Pu exist? Or is it special, and its
specialness is due to the fact that the entire universe is one atom of
231Pu?
Does the isotope 231Pu exist? Humanity has
discovered isotopes of plutonium of 230Pu and
232Pu thereby boxing-in 231Pu. But considering
that the whole entire universe is but one atom
itself and that atom is the isotope 231Pu,
then that fact may lead to something
strange. Because the whole universe is a One Atom
231PU Totality may not allow for the manufacture
of another 231Pu in the whole entirety of the
universe. Thus it may come to pass that no 231Pu
is made in the laboratory, or can ever be
manufactured. And if some researcher announces the
finding of 231Pu, his announcement was in error.
Then on the other hand, Quantum Physics is duality
which means something does not exist unless it
exists identical or almost identical somewhere else.
Thus, the discovery of 231Pu isotope in the
laboratory is just a short time away and we can
expect the annoucement of the finding of 231Pu any
day soon.
My point in this issue is that since the universe is
one atom of 231Pu itself, then there should be some
science measurements possible on 231Pu to either
help confirm or deny the PU One Atom Everything
theory. Provided 231Pu isotope is able to be
manufactured.
For readers who have just tuned in and want to know
how come I know the Atom Totality is 231Pu and not
some other element or isotope. The answer I give is
that 231Pu fits all the important numbers of both
physics and math the best. For instance, the inverse
fine-structure variable of slightly more than 137,
when you add 137 to 94 you get 231.
And perhaps the fine-structure variable is a measure
of how fast the universe is growing. That as the
years go by and more sophisticated devises measure
alpha, that alpha will increase in value, not due to
the ever more sophisticated equipment to measure
alpha, but due to the increasing value with respect
to increasing time. Perhaps in a thousand years from
now the measured value of inverse alpha will be 137.10
and in a thousand years hence it be 137.15. And this
increase is not due to the better scientific
instrumentation, but due to the fact that inverse
alpha is increasing with time. And a measure of this
increase is a function of the increase in the growth
of new matter into the universe. You see, in the
nucleus of 231Pu it is slowly growing from its
present 137 neutrons and 94 protons into that of
a nucleus of (alpha particle--helium nucleus)
137 neutrons + 94 protons + helium nucleus.
But getting back to my original question. I make
this post in order to make aware that scientists
may find things funny, or strange, or odd, or
different in manufacturing and confirming the
existence of the isotope 231Pu. And the reason
for this hardship is because the Universe,
Everything is inside of One Atom of 231Pu.
We must wait and see.
----------------------------------------------------
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Isotope 231Pu is boxed in; Is 231Pu special??
Date: 5 Aug 1996 23:58:25 GMT
Organization: PLutonium College
Lines: 30
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (4u61r1$t...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
References: (4u3bc9$b...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
In article (4u3bc9$b...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> My point in this issue is that since the universe is
> one atom of 231Pu itself, then there should be some
> science measurements possible on 231Pu to either
> help confirm or deny the PU One Atom Everything
> theory. Provided 231Pu isotope is able to be
> manufactured.
What I am thinking here is that if 231Pu is not special in that 231PU
is able to be manufactured in the laboratory, then its rate of decay in
the various modes of decay ought to be a observable quantity in the
universe cosmos itself. What I mean is that the rate of decay to say
alpha particles or neutrons, let us say 1 neutron every 3 seconds would
mean that there exists physics observable quantities which are
measurable , say a growing galaxy which confirms the number of 1 new
neutron per every 3 seconds.
You see, the rate of decay of 231Pu will match the rate of growth of
our observable universe. Many of the high energy cosmic ray particles
are decay products become manifest observables to us. Scientists at
present do not understand where these particles originate, but that is
easy in the Atom Totality theory, because they originate from the
nucleus of 231Pu. In fact the measure of occurence of high energy
cosmic ray particles will be a correlate to the decay modes of 231Pu
should that isotope be manufactured.
If not manufacturable, then 231Pu exists only as the Atom Totality
and because it is the atom of the whole universe, it being special, no
other atom of 231Pu can be manufactured.
Ia supernova, anti-gravity implies 93rd
down-electron Space to our 94th
up-electron Space
by Archimedes Plutonium
this is a return to website location
http://www.newphys.se/elektromagnum/physics/LudwigPlutonium/
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.physics
Subject: accelerating universe and Ia type supernova
Date: 6 Nov 1998 05:34:31 GMT
Organization: further support of Atom Totality theory over
Big Bang theory
Lines: 26
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <71u1p7$9uo$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
In an Atom Totality Universe, the observable universe will appear to
be expanding because it is growing from its present element 94 into a
more heavy future element of 96. Thus our present 231 Plutonium Atom
Totality will grow into the next Atom Totality of element 96. The Big
Bang theory of the universe is unable to account for the anomalous data
reported below concerning Ia type supernovas.
--- quoting in parts SCIENCE NEWS 31OCT98, page 277 ---
Studies support an accelerating universe
New findings support the bizarre notion that the universe will not
only expand forever but will do so at an ever increasing rate.
Early this year, two teams studying the brightness of a collection of
distant, exploded stars-- called type Ia supernovas-- ...
Although his team has only begun analyzing a dozen or so new
supernovas, "the additional data set is reinforcing our conclusion that
the acceleration...
Type Ia supernovas can illuminate the universe's expansion rate
because they all have roughly the same luminosity....
If the universe has revved up its rate of expansion, a supernova at a
given redshift would lie farther away than expected, and so it would
appear dimmer. That's exactly what both teams continue to find. The
supernovas examined are about 15 percent fainter than astronomers can
account for in a standard model of the universe with no acceleration.
--- end quoting in parts SCIENCE NEWS 31OCT98, page 277 ---
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Dirac Equation and Clifford Algebra
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 1998/02/27
Message-ID: (6d535k$n2t$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.logic,sci.math
In article (6d5182$atv$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
Re: Is i=Reals, j=Adics, k=Doubly Infinites ?? Triternions??
> These are some questions that come to my mind in search of proving
> the Barrier Law of Fusion Electricity. Have to make notes on Clifford
> Algebra
The handicap of Clifford Algebra is that it is number manipulation with
no geometry to connect to physics. Clifford Algebra is a generalization
of Quaternions and thus quaternions are a subset thereof.
Clifford Algebra speaks of gamma generators to produce 16 different
kinds of numbers.
Quaternions has 3 gamma generators of i,j,k which produce 8 different
kinds of numbers.
What is important about Clifford Algebra is that the Dirac Equation
seems to be one. Dirac Equation is important and if the Dirac Equation
is necessarily Clifford Algebra, then Clifford Algebra is important.
But if it can be shown that D.E. is only (sufficiently) a Quaternion,
then Clifford Algebra (C.A.) is not important. I am not an expert on
this and so cannot decide at this time.
The gammas of C.A. multiply the partial derivatives of the Dirac
Equation, usually called the Dirac matrices but can be seen as Clifford
Algebra. The 16 parts to the Dirac Equation, 4 by 4 matrices.
Quaternions are only 2 by 2 and thus only 4 parts.
I cannot tell at this moment if quaternions suffice or do not
suffice.
Dirac thought that his matrices (gammas of C.A.) had to do with the
internal parts of the electron.
Sidenote: some years ago I was toying with the idea that mathematics
had operations of add, subtract, etc connected with the number of
geometries that exist. Since geometries were only 3 then 2^3 , where 2
is complementary add is complementary to multiply and subtract
complementary to divide, then there existed only 8 operators to
complete a space of 3 geometries. Thus the operations of add-multiply
and subtract-divide and differentiate-integrate and two more completed
the space of 3 and only 3 geometries of Riem,Loba,Eucl. In this way the
special numbers of 3 connects with 8. And quaternions have that number
8 special whereas C.A. has 16 as special.
Different subject altogether. Suppose 231Pu Atom Totality is true.
Then what would that say about any special numbers for space and
geometry? It would say that the number 94 is special and that the
number 231 is special in the sense that there are 94 electron spaces.
There are in the 5f6 the special numbers of 3 orbitals with the special
number of 2 for 2 electrons in each orbital.
Could the 3 geometries of Riem, Loba, and Eucl suffice to describe
the geometry of a plutonium isotope 231Pu? Or does one need more
geometries to fit together 137 neutrons, 94 protons, and 94 electrons?
I do not see the number 8 or 16 special numbers for 231Pu. But I do
see the numbers 2,3 special to 231Pu. I also see the numbers 94,137,
and 231 special to 231Pu.
Is there a Clifford Algebra for 231 or 137 or 94? You see, what I am
doing is suggesting that (just like in the particle zoo of seemingly
endless supply of new particles) an anchor to solid foundation can be
reached if you assume that the universe is a plutonium atom and the
numbers that make plutonium special will find their specialness in
mathematics such as Clifford Algebra.
More later
------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Clifford Algebras and space of plutonium isotopes
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 1998/02/28
Message-ID: (6d7t9m$g7d$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.logic,sci.math
In article (6d535k$n2t$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> Clifford Algebra speaks of gamma generators to produce 16 different
> kinds of numbers.
>
> Quaternions has 3 gamma generators of i,j,k which produce 8 different
> kinds of numbers.
Notes on Clifford Algebras
The gamma generators are lower down than the i, j, k of quaternions.
Let us see this.
gammas 1, 2, 3, 4
gamma1 times gamma2
gamma2 times gamma3
gamma3 times gamma1 these may be the i, the j and the k
those are bivectors or double gammas or two vectors
Now how many one vectors are there in Clifford Algebras? Easy, there
are *4* one vectors and they are gamma1, gamma2, gamma3, and gamma4
How many bivectors are there in C.A. That is, how many combinations of
4 gammas taken 2 at a time? There are *6* altogether of these double
gammas
How many trivectors? There are only *4* of them
Then, just as Hamilton did for the quaternions he appended a scalar of
the Reals to i,j,k, here for Clifford Algebra we append a zero vector
or a scalar of Reals and this makes *1* zero vector.
Thus adding up the above we have 4+6+4+1 which gives 16
And a Clifford Algebra number: is a number in 4-dimensional space
which is represented as a linear combination of those 16 multivectors.
The difference between Clifford Algebra and Quaternions is that C.A.
takes gamma generators as the building block of space.
Now I still do not see in my mind whether the Dirac Equation is
*necessarily* a Clifford Algebra. Is the Dirac Equation *sufficiently*
a Quaternion?
I am told that D.E. has been represented as a Quaternion but that its
predictive power is diminished. But when D.E. is represented as a C.A.
that its predictive power is full.
I need to know whether Dirac Equation is experimentally verified by
Quaternion mathematics or by Clifford Algebra. I need to know this in
order to attach relative importance to C.A.
I need that because it is experimentally true that the higher
dimension one goes means that you are in the fake theory of Classical
Newtonian Mechanics. Once you step into n-dimension you have lost the
true Quantum Mechanics.
However, I wonder if Clifford Algebras are the correct mathematics
for describing the electron spaces of multielectron atoms. Plutonium
has 94 electrons and it may be that C.A. is the correct description of
94 electrons. How many gammas are needed for a 94 multivector? Or
perhaps the reverse question. How many multivectors would 94 gammas
produce?
Perhaps the Clifford Algebras display the specialness of several
special numbers of 231Pu or some other Pu isotopes say 244Pu or 238Pu?
Such special numbers as 94, 137, 231 or other isotopes.
------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Generalized Dirac Equation of 6 gammas of Clifford
Algebra
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 1998/03/01
Message-ID: (6dacjd$87b$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.logic,sci.math
In article (6d535k$n2t$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> The handicap of Clifford Algebra is that it is number manipulation with
> no geometry to connect to physics.
Dirac Equation
4 gammas
gamma1 times partial derivative with respect to x_1
gamma2 times partial derivative with respect to x_2
gamma3 times partial derivative with respect to x_3
gamma4 times partial derivative with respect to x_4
_________
add them all up, and this result operates on the wavefunction. This is
the left hand side of the Dirac E. The right hand side has a constant
related to mass times the wavefunction. The wavefunction is on both
sides of the equation.
Partial differential equation solve for wavefunction-- which tells you
the energy and spacial distribution of particle (quantum numbers show
up)
Generalized C.A. ? Yes can be either even or odd dimension but the
difference is that can not find a Real Number representation of an odd
algebra eg 5th has no Real , only a Complex representation
I would want to look at a Pu Atom Totality and although our observable
universe (for the most part) is only the 5f6. What numbers are special
to 5f6? Answer is 1,2,3,4,5, and 6.
If we take the gammas of Clifford Algebras as dimensions thus 4 gammas
being 4th dimension and there possible numbers as 2^n for n-dimension,
then we can physically ie, find the physics meaning of Clifford
Algebras as the number of electrons we are talking about. Thus the
standard Clifford Algebra of 4 gammas is the physics talk of the last
four electrons in the 5f6.
Most of our observable universe to humans at present, say 75% is the
last 2 electrons of 5f6, and even more of the observable universe say
80% is the last 4 electrons of 5f6, and perhaps 85% of the observable
universe to humans at present are the entire 6 electrons of the 5f6 of
plutonium.
Today I am convinced that the Dirac Equation is a fine example of
Clifford Algebra and essential and necessary mathematics for the Dirac
Equation. The Quaternions are not sufficient.
So how far will Clifford Algebra be used for physics? It is endless
use for the elements are endless. How many gammas do you need for
plutonium? Well 2^6 = 64 and 2^7 = 128 and so 94 falls between them.
And what kind of Clifford Algebra is a 94 gamma generators produce?
2^94
Implications of the above: the above implies that physicists who think
that the universe is a fixed finite dimension, say three or four, and
all they need do is use the next higher up dimension to solve all of
the world's physics are deluding themselves. People like Einstein who
thought the universe was a 4 dimensional continuum fall flat on their
faces, for all they were doing was toying around with 4 when 94 and
larger await human research. The gamma generators of the Clifford
Algebras are the electron spaces of atoms.
And Dirac's Equation predicted the "positron" when the positron was
merely the electron of the opposite spin electron in the 5f6 orbital of
the last 2 electrons.
Thus a generalized Dirac Equation of using 6 gammas should tell more
about the 5f6 of plutonium. And these should predict the existence of
some remote particle that is in the particle zoo and connected with one
of the f_1, or f_2, or f_3 of the three f orbitals of 5f6. The positron
belongs to the spin down of f_3 and electron is the spin up of f_3.
But a generalized Dirac Equation of 6 gammas ought predict something
even more remote that can be experimentally verified.
------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Numbers have numbers nested inside them; i is all
the Reals as one unit
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 1998/03/04
Message-ID: (6dkkuh$pgf$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.electromag,sci.math
In article (6djcr0$kko$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> Will read that Higgs Mechanism p-adics again. But hate the Higgs and
> black holes. Love the p-adics. Someone gifted with p-adics and who
> majors in physics will become famous in this brand new field.
> Archimedes, take a look at the www-page on P-ADIC HIGGS MECHANISM:
> http://blues.helsinki.fi/~matpitka/padmasses.html
That website looks to be a sort of abstract of a longer paper. The
claim of prediction of the "masses of elementary particles to 1%, even
neutrinos is a bold claim" but whether true or not is a different
matter. There are a-lot of concepts running around in that website,
eg, TGD topological geometrical dynamics.
The use of p-adics is that for Reals the infinite part is the small
part and so the accuracy of measurement is the large part
but for p-adics the infinite part is the large part and so the accurate
measurement of small things is suited best for p-adics. Elementary
particles are , no doubt, small things, and so the use of p-adics vice
Reals is demanded in elementary particle physics.
Post this over in particle physics. All particle physicists of the
future need to be grounded in the mathematics of p-adics.
I did not get a chance to see what Matti Pitkainen's model gave for the
mass of the neutrino? Pertti, what was Matti's neutrino rest-mass
prediction? And what is his mass prediction of the photon? According to
my theory the photon has a tiny rest-mass because the photon is
neutrino composites.
>
> Please let me tell you a little story. Ramanujan, the phenomenal math
> genius when he was working with Hardy required the phenomenal skill of
> another man, I forgotten his name, who was gifted in mental
> calculation. Computers were not accessible then for this purpose. And
> this man was able to compute, in his head, numbers for the partition
> function. Amazing.
If memory serves, I believe the man's name was Mcmahon or Macmahon?
Pertti and Matti have got me thinking about what gravity really is and
will make a separate post. I will use the positron out of the Dirac
Equation and call gravity a mere "effect" of the EM of the 93rd
electron in conjunction with the 94th electron of 5f6 of plutonium.
Clifford Algebras is not general enough. We need 94 gammas. The four
gammas of Clifford Algebras are the Space of the 91st,92nd,93rd and
94th electrons of 5f6.
------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: The force of gravity = the "effect" of EM(93rd) +
EM(94th)
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 1998/03/04
Message-ID: (6dkogn$o8v$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.electromag,sci.math
In article (6dkkuh$pgf$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> Pertti and Matti have got me thinking about what gravity really is and
> will make a separate post. I will use the positron out of the Dirac
> Equation and call gravity a mere "effect" of the EM of the 93rd
> electron in conjunction with the 94th electron of 5f6 of plutonium.
>
> Clifford Algebras is not general enough. We need 94 gammas. The four
> gammas of Clifford Algebras are the Space of the 91st,92nd,93rd and
> 94th electrons of 5f6.
Today is the kind of day I wish Dirac were alive and reading this, and
also DeBroglie. Those two had the best intuition of the 20th century
physics.
Recently I got back into Clifford Algebras. I wanted to get a little
away from fusion but still research the Fusion Barrier Law. Clifford
Algebras are too remote from fusion, but still there may be a
theoretical connection that proves the Barrier Law. I think I am
centuries ahead of the present day physics on this score.
What I have in mind today is to look into what gravity, the force of
gravity really is.
The observable universe for the most part is the 5f6 of 231Pu. And
most of this observable part is the mass and space of the last electron
the 94th.
So, most of the observable universe is the 5f6
89th electron space and mass , plus, 90th electron space and mass
91st electron space and mass , plus, 92th electron space and mass
93rd electron space and mass , plus, 94th electron space and mass
Perhaps when we look at the night sky, of Solar System and galaxies
beyond we are seeing mostly the 94th, or, perhaps it is mix of all six
of those electrons.
If we run across antimatter galaxies then we can safely say that the
night sky is a mix of both 93rd and 94th. And if we find even stranger
astro objects it is a safe bet that the night sky is a mix of all six
of those electron spaces and masses.
The gist of this post is to explore what gravity is.
In Clifford Algebras we have 4 gammas
We have gamma1, gamma2, gamma3, and gamma4
In the 5f6 we have four entities also
89th 90th orbital
91st 92nd orbital
93rd 94th orbital
Such that we can take the Clifford Algebra gammas as the electrons of
91,92,93 and 94
Now then, we will use, yes use the analogy of the Positron begot out
of the Dirac Equation.
5f6 energy level
L = 3 , number of states which have the same L value, M_L is
(2L+1)
7 in this case, and M_S can have 2 so 2(2L+1) = 14 angular momentum
states
I will call the mass and space of the 93rd electron the Dirac Sea.
Such that when we in the 94th electron space and mass do an experiment
where we encounter a positron, we in effect are probing out a "electron
of the 93rd"
How did Dirac get the positron out of his Dirac Equation? Well, when
you write down the D.E. there are solutions which have negative energy.
When you solve those matrices some have negative eigenvalues. The D.E.
is written out in Special Relativity where this negative quantity
exists also.
Now, what I propose is this. That the universe has only 2 forces
which I call Electromagnetism and the other one I call Radioactivities
(includes the weak force but is more general and has rsnm as its major
component -- see my physics website for details
http://www.newphys.se/elektromagnum/physics/LudwigPlutonium/
I am making the force of gravity merely a EM effect between the 93rd
and 94th electrons of 5f6.
I am saying that only two forces exist in Nature, those two are EM
and Radioactivities.
Picture in your mind that you have two universes, each has only two
forces, one is EM and the other Radioactivity. We can dismiss
radioactivity without loss of generality. Then, due to the EM of one
universe affecting the EM of the other, that exchange results in an
effect. We observe this interaction effect as the force of gravity.
Picture two universes, say two identical Milky Way Galaxies, Solar
Systems and Earths. Both these universes are side by side. Each has
only two complementary forces, that of EM and that of Radioactivities.
If one of these universes existed alone and isolated then it would have
only EM and Radioactivities. But when two of them exist side by side,
the interaction of the EM of the 93rd upon the EM of the 94th and vice
versa results in a "side effect". This side effect is observed as "only
attractive, and never repulsion". EM is both attract and repel, but
gravity is only attract.
The orbital of the 93rd plus 94th of 5f6 produces the effect which we
observe as gravity. Thus, you can say that symmetry breaking is an
inchoate idea or concept that is really the interaction of the 93rd
with the 94th.
I propose to go through the Dirac Equation and instead of fetching
out the prediction of the Positron existence. Replace positron with
that of "the force of gravity".
This is a more generalized Dirac Equation. It says that the 93rd
electron is the Dirac Sea containing all the antiparticles vis a vis
the particles of the 94th electron. And the Dirac Sea has its own EM
force. And the EM force of the 94th electron-- our observable universe
when linked with the EM force of the 93rd electron, the resultant is
the force of gravity we are so familar with.
In General Relativity, mass bends space so that planets travel around
in circles. But this "bending" this bending is really caused by the EM
of the Dirac Sea, the antiparticle universe that is the 93rd.
If my above is true, then no graviton will ever be discovered, and to
this date, none have.
If my above is true, then by Occam's Razor, only two forces exist EM
and Radioactivities.
If my above is true, then another effect should also exist that is
observable but to a tiny degree, and that small effect is the
interaction of the 89th and 90th and 91st and 92nd upon the 94th.
The above gives physical meaning to Clifford Algebras and requires
more gammas. It requires 94 gammas to make a comprehensive study of
plutonium. Before, physics had no physical meaning to Clifford Algebras
nor the String theories and all of their offspring. The only physical
reality that Clifford Algebras and String theory had was that, a
string. I offer all of an atom, and the physics of an atom to give
meaning to Clifford Algebras. I will win
------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The force of gravity = the "effect" of EM(93rd) +
EM(94th)
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 1998/03/06
Message-ID: (6dnvs5$177$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.electromag,sci.math
In article (6dkogn$o8v$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> How did Dirac get the positron out of his Dirac Equation? Well, when
> you write down the D.E. there are solutions which have negative energy.
> When you solve those matrices some have negative eigenvalues. The D.E.
> is written out in Special Relativity where this negative quantity
> exists also.
I am much pleased with where this Clifford Algebras is leading me.
Today I have the view that the universe has only two forces. It has EM
force and the other force is Radioactivities.
But the Radioactivities force is composed of several forces: (1)
rsnm, what Dirac calls "new radioactivity" in his book DIRECTIONS IN
PHYSICS (2) weak interaction
Now then, the Strong Nuclear Force and the force of gravity are not
forces at all but merely the forces of EM, or Radioactivities or both.
The Strong Nuclear Force is merely EM when the neutron is seen as a
hydrogen atom system HYASYS where the neutron has a nuclear electron
that runs around in the nucleas and holds together all the protons
(even the proton of that neutron whence the nuclear electron came
from).
And before my teachings the world of physics had this general
coupling-strength scheme of the 4 forces of nature:
Strong Nuclear 100
EM 1
Weak Nuclear 10^-2
gravity 10^-40
I say that is balderdash.
Here is a more accurate scheme of the forces of Nature. There are
only two forces and their coupling strengths are as such.
Radioactivities 50%
EM 50%
This post and thread is not so much about Radioactivities. It is
concerned with understanding gravity, using Clifford Algebras.
And the understanding of gravity is that it is exactly like EM,
Coulomb force except that gravity is only attraction and no repelling.
Coulomb force has both attract and repel.
However, if we look at the entire universe as one atom of 231Pu and
the observable universe as the 5f6 of 231Pu, then we get both a repel
and attract operator for gravity.
We get this by looking into the 5f6 as six electron spaces and masses
of which three of those electron spaces occupy the same orbitals only
with opposite spins. Thus, the 93rd electron space and mass has the
opposite sign of the 94th electron space and mass. This is what Dirac
called the Dirac Sea of his positrons. What Dirac had found in the
positron was really an electron over in the 93rd electron space of 5f6.
All antiparticles we discover, we are plucking out a particle of the
93rd electron of 5f6.
And just the same way that Dirac in his Dirac Equation was able to
predict the positron, so to, the Dirac Equation when working backwards
will beget the force of gravity. For the force of gravity is merely the
EM effect of the 93rd upon the 94th and vice versa. What we know as
spin down for the 93rd and spin up for the 94th, that spin interaction
that permits two electrons to occupy the same space is the force of
gravity and it has both repel and attract. However, since we normally
only observe the 94th spin up state of the 5f6, we think that gravity
only attracts.
And this ties in with the so called infinite energy of the void or
vacuum. This is somewhat nonsense. But if you call the vacuum the 93rd
electron space and mass or other electrons of 231Pu then you have real
physics. Also, gamma ray bursts or energetic cosmic rays are probably
derived from the 93rd or other electrons of 231Pu
------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: type Ia-supernovas; anti-gravity; new repulsive force;
93rd+94th electron spaces of 5f6
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 1998/03/07
Message-ID: (6dqhv5$d9a$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics
The Fusion Barrier Law brings me to researching gravity. And Clifford
Algebras brings me back to discussing what gravity really is.
Now we have fresh news of bizarre cosmology. It is bizarre only if
you accept the Big-Bang theory or the Steady State theory. It is
supporting data to the Atom Totality theory. What this new data is is
the findings that the universe has a "repulsive force" to match the
attractive force of gravity.
--- quoting NEWSWEEK 9MAR98 in parts ---
The hints of anti-gravity come from studies of exploding stars called
type-Ia supernovas. ... It turns out that 40 supernovas, 5 billion to 7
billion light-years away, are receding much more slowly than nearby
stars. "The universe is expanding faster now than it was then," says
lead author Adam Riess of U. of Calif., Berkeley.
...
What remained, says Saul Perlmutter of Lawrence Berkeley Nat.Lab,
leader of the other supernova team, was a mysterious force that seems
to make spacetime itself repulsive. That is, each bit of space is
pushing away from every other one.
....... cosmological constant.....
--- end quoting NEWSWEEK 9MAR98 in parts ---
--- quoting NYT 3MAR98, p.C1-2, in parts ---
Wary Astronomers Ponder An Accelerating Universe
....
The group including Dr. Riess and another one, led by Dr. Saul
Perlmutter....
... Translated that means the astronomers are increasingly confident
that they have detected the first strong evidence that the universe is
permeated by a repulsive force, the opposite of gravity.
... this force is a property of the vacuum of space itself, an energy
that acts on a large scale to stretch space and thus counteract
gravity's restraining power.
....
... The repulsive energy force would presumably counteract gravity and
make the universe ...stand still.
... Not only was the universe's expansion not slowing down, it was
speeding up.
Dr. Perlmutter's group, the Supernova Cosmology Project, has studied
40 distant supernovas in detail.
...
The other group, called the High-Z Supernova Search Team, has
examined only 14 supernovas but was less restrained in its more recent
report.
.... Dr. Brian Schmidt ... is receiving an antigravity boost
--- end quoting NYT 3MAR98, p.C1-2, in parts ---
All of this recent reporting and excitement is easy to explain in an
Atom Totality. The 5f6 of plutonium has six electron spaces.
89th electron space (down spin) 90th electron space (up spin)
91st electron space (down spin) 92nd electron space (up spin)
93rd electron space (down spin) 94th electron space (up spin)
Electrons share an orbital. Thus, the night sky of galaxies is
composed of the Spaces and the Matter of both the 93rd electron and
94th electron of 231Pu
Thus, gravity is just the EM effect of the spin of the 93rd upon the
94th and vice versa. All particles have their antiparticles. Why?
Because our observable universe is a trading back and forth between
space,mass,energy of the 93rd and 94th electron of 5f6 of 231Pu.
Cosmic particles/ gamma-rays are
RSNM (Dirac's new radioactivity, see
his DIRECTIONS IN PHYSICS)
by Archimedes Plutonium
this is a return to website location
http://www.newphys.se/elektromagnum/physics/LudwigPlutonium/
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.particle,sci.physics,sci.astro
Subject: Re: Gamma-ray bursts; hypernova?
Date: 17 May 1998 04:03:58 GMT
Organization: In an Atom Totality, a energetic particle from the
Nucleus can approach infinite energy
Lines: 17
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (6jlnje$ug0$2...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
--- quoting in parts NATURE, 7MAY98, p 13 ---
But a burst seen on 14 December 1997 has told us even more. Three
papers in this issue describe how GRB971214 occurred at an enormous
redshift of 3.42
....
...who calculate from the high redshift that the burst emitted 3 x
10^53 erg in gamma-rays alone. This is around 20% of the rest-mass
energy of the Sun, or 50 times as much as the Sun will radiate in its
lifetime.
--- end quoting in parts NATURE, 7MAY98, p 13 ---
Did anyone see in that article whether the spike signature of the
gamma-ray burst was a positron-electron annihilation? Or perhaps a
proton signature?
How close to Earth would it take for one of these 10^53 erg gamma-rays
cause the extinction of Dinosaurs or of the Permian extinctions?
--------------------------------------------------------------
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.particle,sci.physics,sci.astro
Subject: Gamma-ray bursts; hypernova?
Date: 15 May 1998 03:53:27 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA
Lines: 55
Message-ID: (6jge7n$8rl$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Such was the title of 7May NATURE. In an Atom Totality theory, the size
and quantity of a particle or its energy can be of the size of the
entire observable universe itself, because the observable universe is
merely the 5f6, the space and mass of the last 6 electrons of 231Pu.
Other theories of the universe are bewildered by cosmic ray particles
of 10^19 MeV or gamma-ray bursts of 10^53 erg.
In an Atom Totality, a cosmic ray particle of 10^1000 MeV can show up
or a gamma-ray burst of 10^1000 erg can appear. These energetic
particles are travellers from the nucleus of 231Pu. If one of the alpha
particles of the Atom Totality itself appeared in our 5f6, it could
have more energy than our entire observable universe itself.
The appearance of these energetic particles is nothing to be
frightened of. Sure a particle from the nucleus of 231Pu could snuff
out the entire observable universe, but none will. These appearances
are common daily events and is the means for which our universe is
growing. The Plutonium Atom Totality will someday in the far future
grow into the next Atom Totality of Element 96, but in the meantime,
these energetic particle appearances are growth to our universe. It is
what Dirac was referring to in his classic book DIRECTIONS IN PHYSICS
and which I call RSNM for radioactive spontaneous neutron/alpha
particle/proton/beta particle materialization (RSNM).
To fake theories of physics such as Big-Bang and Steady-State, these
energetic particles are conundrums and puzzles.
--- quoting in parts NATURE, 7MAY98, p 13 ---
The burst, the burster and its lair
An analysis of the light from a gamma-ray burst shows that it occurred
in a very distant galaxy. This confirms that bursts are by far the most
powerful bombs in nature's arsenal, and only the most copious known
energy source can explain them.
In 1969, two satellites were launched to watch for covert nuclear
weapons tests. Instead, they detected occasional flashes of gamma-rays,
coming from apparently random directions in space. Since then, the
origin of these gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) have been among the greatest
problems in astrophysics.
...
But gamma-ray-burst research has been revolutionized since the frist
discovery of an optical afterglow, last year. The BeppoSAX satellite,
....the optical spectrum of GRB970228 had a redshift of at least 0.835
...
But a burst seen on 14 December 1997 has told us even more. Three
papers in this issue describe how GRB971214 occurred at an enormous
redshift of 3.42
....
...who calculate from the high redshift that the burst emitted 3 x
10^53 erg in gamma-rays alone. This is around 20% of the rest-mass
energy of the Sun, or 50 times as much as the Sun will radiate in its
lifetime.
--- end quoting in parts NATURE, 7MAY98, p 13 ---
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Dirac's new radioactivity is cosmic rays and gamma rays
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 1998/03/15
Message-ID: (6effpj$soo$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.geology
The high energy cosmic rays (protons) some of 10^20 MeV have been
observed. Cosmic gamma ray bursts are uniform throughout the cosmos.
Both cosmic rays and cosmic gamma rays are uniform.
This is somewhat a history note for me.
I discovered the Atom Totality in Nov 1990, and by 1991 I was looking
for the *Dirac radioactivity*. I called it RSNM for Radioactive
Spontaneous Neutron Materialization but it included also alpha , beta,
proton, gamma particle materialization. And in 1991, I had figured that
the news media excitement over "cold fusion electrolysis cells" was not
fusion but a tapping into Dirac's radioactivity. The cold fusion
experiments failed to repeat and hence failed. And since I was working
on a patent of RSNM, failure to repeat holds no interest and
subsequently abandoned the patent of RSNM.
Then I shifted attention to the physics of Earth's inner and outer
core as a large scale Electric Motor and that this somehow induced the
Dirac new radioactivity. And my chore was to find out what was
different about this electric motor from others since it induced
Dirac's new radioactivity. That adventure came to nothing and I
abandoned it also.
Then in 1997 I was working on sonoluminescence for fusion and for
accelerators when I stumbled upon the idea that fusion will never be
harnessed.
In late 1997 I discovered the Fusion Barrier Law which put a damper on
my fusion musings and a damper on my patent work.
Early 1998, I am of the opinion that Dirac's new radioactivity is the
cosmic rays and the cosmic gamma rays. And that there is nothing for
which we can "induce" them to come. They come from the nucleus and
other parts of the 231Pu Atom Totality into our observable part of the
universe which is the 5f6 of 231Pu.
--- quoting in parts DIRECTIONS IN PHYSICS, P.A.M. Dirac, pages 76-81
---
Now, according to the Large Number Hypothesis, all these very large
dimensionless numbers should be connected together. We should then
expect that (total mass)/(proton mass) = 10^78 proportional to t^2.
Using the same argument again, we are therefore led to think that the
total number of protons in the Universe is increasing proportionally to
t^2. Thus, there must be creation of matter in the Universe, a
continuous creation of matter.
There have been quite a number of cosmological theories working with
continuous creation of matter. A theory like that was very much
developed by Hoyle and others. The continuous creation which I am
proposing here is entirely different from that. Their continuous
creation theory was introduced as a rival to the Big Bang theory, and
it is not in favor at the present time.
The continuous creation which I have here is essentially different
from Hoyle's continuous creation, because Hoyle was proposing a steady
state of the Universe, with continuous creation to make up for the
matter which is moving beyond our region of vision by the expansion. In
his steady-state theory, he had G constant. Now, in the present theory,
G is varying with time, and that makes an essential difference.
I propose a theory where there is continuous creation of matter,
together with this variation of G. Both the assumption of continuous
creation and the variation of G follow from the Large Numbers
Hypothesis.
This continuous creation of matter must be looked upon as something
quite independent of known physical processes. According to the
ordinary physical processes, which we study in the laboratory, matter
is conserved. Here we have direct nonconservation of matter. It is, if
you like, a new kind of radioactive process for which there is
nonconservation of matter and by which particles are created where they
did not previously exist. The effect is very small, because the number
of particles created will be appreciable only when we wait for a very
long time interval compared with the age of the Universe.
If there is new matter continually created, the question arises:
"where is it created?" There are two reasonable assumptions which one
might make. One is that the new matter is continually created
throughout the whole of space, and in that case, it is mostly created
in intergalactic space. I call this the assumption of additive
creations. Alternatively, one might make the assumption that new matter
is created close by where matter already exists. That newly created
matter is of the same atomic nature as the matter already existing
there. This would mean that all atoms are just multiplying up. I call
that the assumption of multiplicative creation. There are these two
possibilities for the creation of new matter. I do not know which to
prefer. One should continue with both possibilities and examine their
consequences.
Well, there we have effects which we might hope to be able to
measure, and so check up on whether this theory is a good theory or
not. We just have to make accurate observations with atomic time. I
should emphasize that it is important that these observations are made
with atomic time, because the above formulas apply only to quantities
in atomic units.
We might, first of all, think of the Moon and make observations of
the Moon to check on this theory. Now, people have been making
observations of the motion of the Moon for the last 20 years with
atomic time. They have also recently been making accurate observations
of the distance of the Moon, referred to atomic units. The astronauts
who landed on the Moon put down some laser reflectors, and people are
now sending laser light to these reflectors and observing the light
reflected by them. They then measure, using an atomic clock, the time
taken by the light to get to the Moon and back and, in that way, get
the distance of the Moon, referred to atomic units.
If we apply it to the motion of the Moon around the Earth, our
theory would require that with additive creation the Moon should be
approaching the Earth by an amount we can easily calculate. It is about
2cm/year.
With multiplicative creation, the Moon should be moving away from the
Earth at the same rate. We would have to measure, therefore, the
distance of the Moon to that accuracy. Now, people have recently been
measuring the distance of the Moon with very great accuracy. The most
recent information I obtained was that, nearly a year ago, they had the
...
--- end quoting in parts DIRECTIONS IN PHYSICS, P.A.M. Dirac, pages
76-81 ---
----------------------------------------------------
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.particle,sci.astro
Subject: Dirac's new radioactivity is cosmic-ray-protons of 10^20 MeV
Date: 27 Mar 1998 05:12:45 GMT
Organization: PLutonium College
Lines: 33
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (6ffcgd$j36$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
What is the largest energy proton (cosmic ray) particle ever recorded?
The reason I ask is because record breaking newer higher energetic
protons are discovered every year and the previous record is broken.
Has the most energetic proton been observed at 10^20 MeV?
RSNM is short for Radioactive Spontaneous
Neutron/Proton/Alpha-particle/Beta-particle/photon/neutrino
Materialization.
RSNM is the means by which the universe grows, in matter and energy.
Our galaxy and solar system grew from RSNM and cosmic rays are the most
dramatic examples of RSNM.
So where does RSNM come from? Easy answer: RSNM (cosmic ray protons)
come from the nucleus of 231Pu. Our space and the matter we observe as
galaxies is but the last six electrons of 231Pu. These last six
electrons are called the 5f6. So when the nucleus of 231Pu emits a
particle it can settle in the 5f6 and it can have almost infinite
amount of energy. Keep in mind that our observable universe is but six
electrons and a proton emitted from the nucleus of the 231Pu Atom
Totality can have more energy than the entire energy of the 94th
electron of 5f6.
Dirac's new radioactivity as he outlines in his book is RSNM and it
is at work daily in the observable universe. Cosmic ray protons are
this new radioactivity and it seems to be uniform throughout the
observable universe.
Whether the observable universe is additive-up or multiplying-up, a
question that Dirac proposed in his book, I cannot tell at this time. I
would need to research this question of Dirac. I suppose I can find
some link with the observed cosmic ray protons, and that 5f6 of
plutonium.