THE NINEDIMENSIONAL Finite spin MODEL (PART 14)
We
have demonstrated that a 9dimensional model is mathematically justified, and
we have, inter alia:
· explained intrinsic spin of fermions
·
demonstrated
the need for 9D in intrinsic angular momentum and electron intrinsic spin ^{28} ^{50}
·
either
the electron shape is symmetrical but nonspherical, or the speed of light may
be exceeded in extra dimensions without detection in 3S1t ^{70}
A finite quantized 9dimensional spin model explains previously
unexplained phenomena, and reveals the existence of a third form of the
substance of reality, (gimmel) creating and sustaining structural stability in
an otherwise chaotic decaying universe. And a finite quantized 9dimensional
spin model requires triadic rotational equivalence units (TRUE) to describe it
with mathematical and geometric consistency.
A 9Dspin model is mathematically consistent with the existence
of the three finite, quantified dimensions of space, measured in integers,
three dimensions of time, measurable
in imaginary numbers, and three additional, subtly allencompassing dimensions
containing the other dimensional domains and their contents of mass and energy,
but also containing the third form of content, gimmel, likely linked
significantly with consciousness, which can be represented quantitatively by
the mathematical inclusiveness of complex numbers. A further encompassing level
of hyperdimensionality is a discrete, transfinite domain which incorporates
all nine dimensions and their contents.
The conveyance equation used to describe the combination of
elementary particles observed in 3S1t naturally consists of linear measurement
integers cubed because the volumes of threedimensional objects are described
mathematically and geometrically as shape factors times the linear measures of
the objects cubed. Note that, at least in theory, higher dimensional conveyance
equations (m > 3) can be used to describe hyperdimensional phenomena
mathematically. The metamathematical calculus of distinctions has been
designed by Close to handle the logical structure of multidimensional reality.
STABILITY AND PARTICLE BONDING (PART 15)
In this TRUE unit analysis of Hydrogen and its isotopes, we can
identify the four forces that affect the stability of structures composed of
protons, neutrons and electrons, holding together the entities that make up the
physical universe. We postulate that they are, in order of strength:
·
Dimensionometric tethering involves the
spacelike inclusion of each ndimensional domain within the next higher (n +
1) dimensional domain, effectively linking ג (gimmel) with the
mass/energy of subatomic particles. This linkage ensures the stability and
symmetry of elementary particles, atoms and molecules in 3S1t through the
powerful binding forces of 9dimensional rotation.
·
the attractive forces of electrical charge,
·
magnetism and
·
gravity.
The first of these four mechanisms of symmetric stability is the
organizing force of the transfinite substrate, mediated mathematically and
dimensionometrically by the conveyance equation to produce ordropy (formerly called extropy or negative entropy). The last
three are products of the resistance to the ordropy of 9Dspin and the
dissipative force of universal expansion.
With regard to organizing tethering, structures with more ג units are more strongly connected
with the ninedimensional structure of the substrate of reality. Moreover, if
the collection of elementary particles cannot combine to form a symmetric
structure in accordance with the FLT restriction and an integer solution of the
Conveyance Equation, the collection of particles will not stay together long,
even if attracted together by gravity, magnetism and opposite charge to become
electrically neutral. The stronger forces of rotational expansion and the
impacts of external forces will cause such structures to spiral and fly apart.
It may seem odd that the ratio of ג units to mass/energy units for the
electron in these three atomic structures is so much greater than for the other
elementary particles. But, as we revealed above, these numbers are not
arbitrary. Instead, they are dictated by the quantum nature of our ostensible
experiential 3S1t reality, and the integer solutions of the Diophantine
equations of the Conveyance Expression.
In earlier publications, we have integrated units of ג,
mass and energy through application of the principles of the Special Theory of
Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, showing that they are equivalent in TRUE
units. Thus, it should be expected that the volume the electron occupies in
each orbital shell contributes more to the number of TRUE units for the
electron in contrast with the other particles occupying less volumetric
equivalence.
Note that atomic and subatomic structures are spinning like
vortical solitions connecting the dimensional domains. The stability of an atom
is less than that of electrons, protons and neutrons. The stability of an atom
depends upon whether its components can combine volumetrically, the attraction
of the opposite electric charges of spinning electrons and protons, nuclear symmetric
stability made possible by the existence of gimmel, and the symmetry created by
their high rate of rotation, or vortical spin.
It is, en passant, interesting that electrons are relatively far
removed from the atomic nucleus. Conventional particle physics has always
argued that weak electromagnetic forces hold the electron together, but this
work suggests that with 9D spin and far greater gimmel, that the overriding
component may well be the role of the proportion of gimmel linked with the
physical massenergy components of electrons in our 9D reality. This would
make much more sense and in fact that might be what socalled “weak forces” are
all about. We just need to understand that particle reality is not just 3S1t
but a 9 dimensional spinning reality. The impact of the ג units in 3S1t observations reflects the logic of the
(hypothesized) conscious substrate, so thinking of ג as units of that
third form of the substance of reality, including consciousness, working
through the equations of the Conveyance Expression is justifiable, and
comparing the ratio of ג units to
mass/energy units for elementary particles, elements, molecules and compounds
provides a relative measure of ostensible consciousness in all physical
structures.
Finally, including protons, neutrons and electrons as building
blocks, and using the models of H1 (Protium) and heavy hydrogen with a neutron
(deuterium) H2, the entire periodic table of elements can be calculated with
their physical and chemical characteristics significantly explained in terms of
their structure in TRUE units.
In the conventional description of the combining of elements and
molecules to form new entities, two basic types of bonding are identified:
covalent and ionic. Covalent bonding is also described as atoms sharing outer
shell (valence) electrons. Ionic bonding occurs when ions of opposite
electrical charge, are drawn together. An atom is called an ion when it has a
different number of electrons than protons, and an atom with more electrons
than protons is called a negative ion (anion), and with fewer, it is called a
positive ion (cation). These two types of bonding seem simple enough, but it
appears that there are more complex compound types of bonding that require
additional descriptions and visual representations: There is polar covalent
bonding, nonpolar and hybrid bonding. There are Hydrogen bonds, metallic
bonds, and Van der Waals bonds. We will not spend time discussing all of the
types of bonding described in the current paradigm here, because TRUE unit
analysis provides us with an almost entirely different way of understanding how
particles combine, but we should be aware that these variations will impact
potentially on the analysis of different compounds.
Looking at the TRUEunit structure of quarks, Hydrogen, Deuterium
and Tritium, we see that the way the subatomic components are combined
determines the symmetry and stability of the resulting compound entity. When
three elementary particles combine, like the three quarks of a proton or
neutron, with the necessary units of ג,
to form integral TRUE unit solutions, they are combined volumetrically, forming a new symmetrically stable structure. This
type of combination is the most stable. There are no electrons to be stripped
off and such a compound particle can only be broken apart under extreme
conditions, like the extreme heat and pressure in the heart of a star, or the
ultrahighenergy collisions of a particle collider.
In H1, all of the TRUE units of the subatomic particles, the
electron and proton, with their quarks, have combined and reorganized to form
a new symmetric structure. Thanks to the stabilizing ג units they have combined volumetrically to form a symmetrically
stable and electrically neutral entity, the Hydrogen atom. So instead of being
inherently unstable, as it would be if only composed of one electron and one
proton, with the necessary units of ג,
the Hydrogen atom is very stable. However, because it has only one electron in
its outer shell, which has room for two electrons, it is not nearly as stable
as the proton and neutron bonding of quarks. H2 is volumetrically stable, but
has a lower גtomass/energy ratio
than H1, making it still less stable. H3 could not combine volumetrically
because it is composed of four subatomic entities, not three (FLT again) so it
is asymmetric and even less stable, held together only by the attraction of
equal and opposite electrical charge. This is an example of an atom with
unequal numbers of protons and neutrons and every one of these is less stable
than those with equal protons, neutrons and electrons: When we analyze that
subset, these are the potential atoms that are associated with either:
1. life,
or
2. with
frequent occurrence in the cosmos, such as inert gases like Helium and Neon ^{101}. However, in this
instance, we propose that the absence of outer shells may make them very stable
^{12}, but produces an
almost complete inability to combine precluding their being life elements ^{1}
Table 15AHe3: Helium Atom with P^{+ }= 24 and N^{0}
= 38
HELIUM:
Number of Valence Electrons =  2 + 2 = 0 (Inert)
Particle

Charge

Mass/Energy

ג

Total
TRUE Units

Volume

2e

 6

2

210

212^{*}^{}

9,528,128

2P^{+ }

+ 6

34

14

48

110,592

2N^{0}

0

44

32

76

438,976

Totals

0

80

256

336

(2x108)^{3}
^{}

Using TRUEunit analysis, we can investigate every possible
combination of H1 atoms and neutrons and determine which combinations are the
most stable. After Tritium, the next stable combination of TRUE units, Helium,
involves 336 TRUE units.
Why is this not called “quadrium”, a third isotope of Hydrogen?
It is a new element because it has two electrons filling its outer (and only)
shell, so that it is not easily attached to other atoms.
Importantly we’re already seeing a pattern: a multiple of 108
cubed for the total volumetric equivalent of Helium. We can hypothesize that
empirically all stable atoms of life and inert gases that are distributed in
the 3S1t cosmos, should be a multiple of the 108 cubed: 108 is 3 cubed (=27),
reflecting 3D volume, multiplied by four (=two squared), reflecting the 2D
nature of the planes of rotation.
We hypothesize first that what we know empirically are the
elements of life namely oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, magnesium and calcium
should show specific life properties including symmetry, stability and high
gimmel to TRUE ratio.
Furthermore, we could propose that the noble, inert gases Helium
and Neon because of their abundance should show the same stability features in
terms of a similar high gimmel to TRUE ratio. But we could not initially
predict this until the analyses in this paper.
Of course, we know that hydrogen should have extraordinary
symmetry and stability and would expect it to have the most gimmel because it
is far the most abundant element in the cosmos plus a fundamental
lifesustaining element.
We would expect that some surprises may occur in our analyses.
Silicon turns out to be lifesustaining: This is not predicted but after
analysis making perfect sense. And we know that Phosphorus, Sodium and Chlorine
are very much involved in life processes but not as fundamentally so as the
elements above. So we were curious as to their gimmel and valence calculations.
These analyses are below. In this paper, we will find that the
empirical analysis confirms this hypothesis which theoretically makes sense as
well based on our hypothesis that mathematics does not occur just for
calculation but as an intimate and integral (pun deliberate!) part of life and
cosmological existence. Moreover, we hypothesize that when the cube root of the
Volumetric equivalence score is not an integer, such atoms, molecules and
compounds are less stable and less symmetrical (we know that as in these
chemicals, neutrons ≠ protons so they cannot be symmetrical).
New elements arise when a unique new combination of TRUE units,
constructed using multiples of the basic building blocks of electrons, protons
and neutrons is formed. The next element is the combination of the inert atom,
Helium, with the asymmetric atom, H3 to form Lithium.
Table 15B LITHIUM, Valence Electrons = 3  2 = 1
Particle

Charge

Mass/Energy

ג

Total
TRUE Units

Volume

3e

 9

3

315

318

32,157,432

3P^{+ }

+ 9

51

21

72

373,248

4N^{0}

0

88

64

152

3,511,808

Totals

0

142

400

542

(330. 32…)^{3
*}

Since the total volume is not an integer cubed, Lithium, like
Tritium, is volumetrically asymmetric. It has a stronger electrical bond than
H3 and more ג units connecting it with the multidimensional substrate for
added stability, but it is less stable because it is asymmetric. Theoretically,
Lithium should crave an atom like Hydrogen 1. This would produce a stable
bonding Lithium hydride if the bonding were covalent. However, such bonding is
ionic, not directly mechanically related to spin, and therefore this is why we
do not see much lithium hydride in the cosmos and as a useful compound in
living organisms.
Therefore, analyses of molecules involve TRUE stability
tendencies but these must be calculated anew applying each TRUE calculations
for each chemical radical (like –OH, or H^{+}). These compounds must
exhibit stability to remain viable for long periods and this stability can be
calculated based on their gimmel contents and shells along with their chemical
bonding. Molecules exhibit different levels of stability just as there are with
the elements themselves.
Stability based on TRUE units:
Clearly there are different levels of stability and symmetry for
TRUE unit analyses.
Table 15C: Degrees of
stability of atoms and molecules using TRUE analyses
Term

Examples

Property

Ratio of Gimmel to TRUE

Chemical relevance

STABLE

Natural substances

Generic for stability

High ratio

Elements, molecules, compounds

Hydrostable

Hydrogen

Extra gimmel/daled

Hydrogen very high; high ratio

No neutron

Superstable

Nitrogen, oxygen,
S, P, Ca, Ma, Si, water

Elements and lifesupporting
molecules

N=P=E
Readily combine with each other


Hyperstable

Helium, neon

Inert gases

High ratio

Atoms with full outer shells.

Dynamically Stable = Life
permostable

RNA, DNA, Organic compounds

Major
Vehicles of Life, Solitions

High ratio

Naturally regenerative

Protostable
/ existent permostable.

Metals and
metallic compounds

Exist on earth naturally

Inconsistent but low ratio
Semistable

N≠P
P=E elements

UNSTABLE


Naturally Unstable

Naturally occurring Isotopes

Volatile

Low ratio

N≠P
P=E or P≠E

Artificially Unstable

Higgs boson, muons,
Neutrino, antimatter

Collider induced, Interactive

Unknown
Probably
extremely low

Interaction with particles
produces little or no chemical change

We cannot
just have a dichotomy of “stable” / “unstable” that we use in colloquial
English. Current terminology such as stable and unstable is insufficient
to portray differences in the molecules, atoms and subatomic particles that
make up our cosmos. The stability levels vary:
We describe decreasing hierarchies of stability: Hydrostable,
Superstable, Hyperstable, Protostable, Naturally unstable and Artificially
unstable.
Hydrostable refers to
elements with more gimmel/ daled instead of a neutron. This is unique for
Hydrogen as the most prevalent element in the cosmos and the most reactive one
in the elements of life. It does not have a neutron and instead has more
“gimmel” equivalent. But we don’t know that this is the same “gimmel” so we
call it “daled”. This is needed for its properties and we contrast that with
helium.
We
introduce the concept of “superstability” ^{1} pertinent for elements of
life: Superstable occurs where
N=P=E readily combine life elements
(e.g. N , O , S, Ca, Mg, Si). Hyperstable
is where N=P=E but inert (e.g. He, Ne): “hyperstability” is for the inert gases
with equal protons and neutrons like He, Ne) and complete electron shells.
Permostable refers to
natural elements on earth where N≠P and the elements are not integral. There
are in between elements such as sodium and magnesium, chlorine and iodine are
reactive but do not fit the equal N, E, P requirement and do not exhibit any
integral cubes. They exhibit lesser stability and are stable. But they can
become more stable as compounds.
“Permostable” (permanent stable) is for those elements and
chemicals that are persistent not transient: But these have degrees of
permostability and life reactivity so the one would be “life permostable” like sodium, and the other does not naturally
interact with life though may sometimes be trace elements or used for
medication (“existent permostable”).
One major difference would be dependent on proportion of gimmel to TRUE.
Dynamically stable is
for critical but complex compounds (e.g. DNA, RNA, organic compounds).
Finally, there is “unstable” like isotopes for those that are
ephemeral, impermanent, momentary or fleeting such as H3, but which still
exists naturally. Then there are the artificial unstable groups such as those
produced only in collider data like the Higgs boson. (Table 15C stability)
Naturally unstable: By
contrast, elements that are ephemeral and volatile are asymmetric and unstable
because their TRUE values are not integral: They are natural isotopes occurring
in low ratio. We must distinguish from Artificially
unstable: relates to particles developed artificially in colliders (e.g.
Higgs Boson, neutrinos, muons) from LHC data.
No comments:
Post a Comment