**THE
ATOMIC NUCLEUS**
2023VII15 | a production ·
| Senast uppdaterade version**:**
**2023-09-15** · Universums Historia ♦ **HumanRight**** is a knowledge domain**

**content** — innehåll
*denna sida* · webbSÖK **ä****MNESORD** *på
denna sida* Ctrl+F · sök ämnesord överallt i indexREGISTER · förteckning över **allUHwebbsites**

BASIC short
history INTRODUCTION TO THE related physics and mathematics ATOMIC NUCLEUS IN TheNeutron,
unless already acquainted

TNED EXPLAINS ATOMIC NUCLEAR EXPERIMENTAL PHYSICS

SUMMING CONCLUSION ¦ *ActualArgument* ¦ *The*RESULT*in*SUM ¦ **NuclearRADIUS**
¦ **AngeliTNED**

PROTON RADIUS
—— **THE NEUTRON SQUARE SIGNIFICANCE**

**——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————**

**——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————**

TNED STATEMENT: MOST OF THE ATOMIC METRIC NUCLEUS’ EXTENSION
IN SPACE IS GENERALLY NOT EXPERIMENTALLY ACCESSIBLE — see TNED NuclearSTRUCTURE.
WholePicture.

———————————————

AngeliTNED
¦ ComparingFrame ¦
ProtonRADIUS *r*_{0} in general nuclear physics¦
DEDUCTION
¦ Derivation
¦ DeducingTHErZ
¦ ReHofstadter1956
¦ HofstadterTNED

**WANTED:
Disclaimer. Science history is already well represented with examples where too
hastily made »mathematical conclusions» have caused more confusion and delusion
than a regular education. Apart from the present issue exemplified in ***AllKeplerMath***: mathematics
without relating the environmental fuckups is a dead end.**

Basic: TAN

**— The point (a
regular TNED
statement): Atomic nuclear experimental physics on ( r) »nuclear size»
involving (Z) ”nuclear charge” cannot expose,
prove or pinpoint the **

** Compare the Krisch group results 1979¦1987:
»perfect assembly». TNED exposes a collector »and explanator — and
’provator’» in experimental nuclear physics. Disclaim.**

** **

**— The peculiar
vertical scale relationship ( TheProof)
between the Angeli2004 data, the R(fm) i 1.00 Fermi units, and the resulting
TNED vertical scale in 1.37 Fermi units shows and proves:**

The present academic Experimentalist’s atomic
nuclear physicist reference knows of no ”*r*_{0}=1.37 Fermi *preference*”
in practical nuclear physics. But practical nuclear physics apparently do so (Deducing TheProtonRadius
r0=1.37 Fermi from Planck constant and the classic 1913 Bohr model Hydrogen
Spectrum ¦ ComparingFrame ¦ TheHammerExplanation). So: TNED
apparently — provably, down to the last cosmic atom: **do
disclaim that, anyone who can: searched for, none yet found **— explains physics. This
presentation (Jul2023+) deals with all the basic details.

INCLUDING PERSISTENT ATTEMPTS FROM THE AUTHOR
TO FIND RELATED ARGUMENTS WITH WHICH TO KILL TNED. Searched for. None yet
found. Search continues. But perhaps the reader has more skills in this
subject. Soon enough we will find out. See an introduction from TheNeutron — and BackGround

** **

**— As to the
apparent AngeliBlue deviations especially in
the first part of the nuclide chart, we have the same order of points as in the
pioneering Hofstadter (1956) results (HofstadterTNED)
— see also the NeutronExcess map in the nuclear
chart. **

TheNP: TAN

———————————————

TNEDbegin1993 ¦ TNED Atom Physics TwoKingsEquations ¦

** **

**The present
science community definitely — now (Jul2023+) as it is TNED suggested also
exclusively provable — has no insight, not at all, into the physics
properties of the first two atomic nuclides Neutron/Proton and Deuteron.
Definitely, not at all, concerning their morphology and its form factors (N3m15¦2).
Another modern academic picture has instead showed up: academic consensus invents
most popular corresponding experimental results onto »a new academic
more suitable The atomic nucleus». Disclaim. The first two nuclei A=1
and A>1 are frequently used in modern corridors for determining all
the other heavier nuclei (as so described in available scientific texts, the
present academic nucleon and quark theories). However, »the disparities»
are smoothed out towards the end of the chart, as also is the primary particle
experimental case in the Hofstadter results (ReHofstadter1956)
— which started and is responsible for this whole revelation of matters,
mildly spoken (Jul2023+).**

** **

Introduction: 18Jul2023 ¦ **ComparingFrame**
¦ **NuclearSize**
— ARTICLES ¦
**WholePicture**
¦
plusCUBEgraph ¦
Angeli2004 ¦
TheELECTRONmassELEMENT

THE FIRST
CRUSIAL TNED TEST
1993 ¦ **N3m20results** — THE INSPIRATION FROM EXPERIMENTAL
PARTICLE PHYSICS THAT LED TO TNED ¦ **NuclearBasics** ¦
**ToroidTopSPINsurfaceAREA**

CHARGE DENSITY
DISTRIBUTION
¦ **NuclearRadius**
— NUCLEAR SIZE ¦
**TheNuclearRadiusCurves** ¦ TNEDNucSizeImpact ¦ **ReHofstadter1956** ¦ **DeducingTHErZ** ¦ **DEDUCTION**

COMPARE TNED/MODERN ACADEMY
RESULTS ON ATOMIC MASSES — modern academic nuclear theory
is apparently outclassed — by The Neutron Square:
elliptic equations

*The TNED deduced Planck ring
±e structural toroid fractal system and its electric displacement principle
defining the nuclear charge and its magnetic moment*

**The inadequate
modern academic advised nuclear size MEASURE DEPENDENCE on Z, TNED says,
PERVERTS a true nuclear size estimation (TheCorruptedNucleus).**

INADEQUATE: The atomic nucleus
has no inner constituing particles, TNED says. That is a grave delusion.
Fractal PlanckRING np-STRUCTURE it is.

— More solid proof is needed to
certify the suggested inadequateness on the modern occurrences of data in the
region — **if
at all**.

NUCLEAR RADIUS AND NUCLEAR CHARGE RADIUS
ARE TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CONCEPTS IN NUCLEAR PHYSICS — RELATED PHYSICS SAYS
AND EXPLAINS

*In modern academic corridors
however, the term ”charge radius” — ideal electrically
charged sphere (Quotes) — is frequently used as a
standard in academic nuclear physics.*

*See WikipediaQuote
and others — indifferently associated with »the old school term» nuclear radius
— as it may be understood (”nuclear radius” is not mentioned in the Wikipedia
article, not at al — see Comparing quotes Wikipedia 14Aug2023
versus HOP 1967, same subject).*

RELATED PHYSICS AND MATHEMATICS

mass
charge ±e spin ±s

TNED
— *Planck ring toroid fractal structure*:¦ *Q/*(*V=m*/[*D *→∞] = *V*→**0**) ¦

*Related physics and
mathematics — *TNED*begin*1993

THE ATOMIC NUCLEUS

THE FUNDAMENTAL FORM OF GRAVITATION: **mass**, the atomic nucleus from The Neutron: h=mcr

———————————————

**ElectricDisplacement** — NuclearStructure: Introduction ¦ TEPRIS

Nuclear
charge in present academic idea yields a structure of spinning *(spherically shaped so called nucleons, see **Quotes and especially Wikipedia on Nucleon and ”charge radius”, compare TNED physics in NoNucleons and NoStatistics) *neutrons *(n) *and
protons *(p) *inside heavier nuclei*. The academic nucleons themselves
are made up of the so called Quarks, also spherical entities. *Knowing the *np*-dimensions,
the academic idea is that it is *or should be* possible to calculate the
enveloping container, the actual nucleus, its actual extension in space,
corresponding to a nuclear radius.

— In TNED nothing of a such nature exists — or if accepted, only
be understood as »a primitive». *The atomic nucleus is explained entirely on
Planck’s constant h=mcr as the neutron on a hollow toroid unlimited fractal
ring system, gravitation’s fundamental form. From the neutron, all heavier
nuclei is built (by exothermal fusion processes from a primary **Dmax condition — the K-cell heat physics in related physics
and its corresponding expanding — and contracting — universe)*. From the TNED point of view, the present academic idea
of nuclear size — based on the nucleon and quark theory — **inadequates the entire physical atomic nuclear
complex, making its true nature impossible to penetrate***. This presentation will relate all the details.*

———————————————

TNED ¦ Nov2007
NeutronensNolladdning — The Neutron ZERO Charge ¦ Nov2007 npSTRUKTUREN — Nuclide
CHART AZ ¦ Aug2008 LADDNINGSDEPLACEMENTET — THE Charge Displacement ¦ Nov2007 Dimensions

Nov2007 ATOMKÄRNANS GEOMETRI UNDER AXIELL
DEFORMATION — omkretsen kan inte ändras — The
NUCLEAR FRACTAL STRUCTURE ¦ Nov2007 The NUCLEAR MAGNETIC MOMENT

The
Displacement — Nov2007 Introduction ¦ QUANTUM NUMBERS ¦ The
Periodic System ¦ The
Mass Annihilation Process — SunPhysics

DeuteronensHemlighhet: Kriterium071r:
TheDEUTERONsecret: THE SECRET DEUTERON — Derivation
result ¦

THE TOROID NUCLEAR MORPHOLOGY with N=3 for all A>1 appears ——
**before we know any specific form factor** [m] for the A=1 toroid
aggregature —— really. IT ALL REFLECTS
Kepler-Planck MATHEMATICS. **A** denotes mass number.
Below: The 1/√2 = 0.71 Criterion —— »The HIDDEN Deuteron Secret». What
does it mean?

All details in Deuteron1CON, unless already
familiar.

J = » *m***ω***r*^{2} + *m***ω***r*^{2} = *m***ω***r*^{2 }»; » **mass increase is compensated
by radial decrease** »: none of this crap makes sense .. **go
home** .. disappaear .. **now** ..

Deuterium
formation’s angular momentum ( **impulsmoment**) mvr in TNED,
above-below. ω* from v = *2π*r*/T*
= *(2π/T)*r = *ω*r*; *mvr = m*ω*r*^{2};
*nuclear top spin* **ω** = 2π*f*
*is universally conserved*.

; *m***ω**(*r*→*r*/√2)^{2} + *m***ω**(*r*→*r*/√2)^{2} = **2***m***ω**(*r*/√2)^{2}
= *m***ω***r*^{2} ¦ *m***ω**(*r*)^{2} + *m***ω**(*r*)^{2} = **2***m***ω**(*r*→*r*/√2)^{2}
= *m***ω***r*^{2} = **2***m***ω**(*r*/√2)^{2} = **2***m***ω**(*r*)^{2}
¦ 1H2 ¦

On
the same route then can angular momentum **impulsmoment** mvr in the formation of
Helium-4 from two deuterium nuclei be related to the base radius r för
Hydrogen-1 as

;
**2***m***ω**(*r*/√2)^{2} + **2***m***ω**(*r*/√2)^{2}
= **4***m***ω**(*r*/√2)^{2} = 2*m***ω***r*^{2} ¦ 2He4

Hydrogen-1
and Helium-4 receives thereby same (gravity) nuclear radius r=1 — but on
different inner form factors — with the smaller in-between lying deuteron
radius 1/√2, so that we receive the base picture:

THE DEUTERON REDUCED RADIUS — DeuteronSecret
— FROM THE NEUTRON/PROTON RADII HAS ALSO A DEFINITE CONNECTION TO THE DECISIVE
NEUTRON SQUARE in its definition. See the PROTONradius
AND BasicNuclides.

FormFactor: INTRO

**THE EARLY 1993 TNED
CRUCIAL DEDUCTION OF THE ATOMIC NUCLEUS**
— the N3m20 PlanckRING h=mcr NEUTRON and Proton toroid nuclear aggregate;
TNEDbegin ¦ Jul1993 TheToroidTest
¦ The TOROID
Aggregature —

*The preservation of the aggregates’ form factor through
varying mass number — we solved the R(A) equation for its least possible value
through a derivation — *

**RESULTED IN A REGULAR constant
EXPRESSION** (m_{A}=1+K/2)
meaning: All successive nuclei from mass number A=2 and up have a structural identical
morphology. Meaning: All TNED derived atomic nuclei from A=2 and up have one
and the same inner structure: same form factor — »as if ideally a homogeneous sphere». However in TNED
on the form of a Planck structure fractal hollow toroid aggregature. Or
shorter: **atomic
nuclei can only appear in such quantities from a most light elementary form
(the neutron; h=mcr: Planck constant)**.

TheNEUTRON: FormFactor ¦ TheDEUTERONsecret
¦ **NUCLEARstructure** ¦ **Introduction**

*Related physics and
mathematics — how the picture of the atomic nucleus appears through deduction
from the universal Planck RING constant h = mcr*

———————————————

TNED ¦
PHYSICS7
¦ PhysicsFIRST ¦ *The Cube Analogy* ¦
The PlanckRING — TheNEUTRON ¦ The Potential barrier ¦ The ELECTRIC CHARGE ¦ Light’s
GRAVITATIONAL DEPENDENCY ¦

The IDEA

IS BUILT on the natural suggested illustration: all matter is
built from equally shaped basic building stones [ Ludwig Boltzmann — battles
inside science during the 1800s ] — atoms and their atomic nuclei — with no
exception. TNEDbegin.

♦ But like the
water drop natural illustration: WATER DROPS ARE NOT SEEN SPINNING AROUND IN
THE SURROUNDING SEA: **the atomic nucleus has no
inner particle constituents**: gravitation is not a particle.

*1900: Max Planck deduces *

*the basics of universal
physics — h, Planck constant h = mcr =* 6.62559
t34 JS:

PlanckEnergy E = hf = mcr/t = mc² : starphysics — beginning
from TheNEUTRON: h = mcr: **mass charge spin**

The PlanckRING *or analogously (Kepler momentum K=vr with mass m) the general
connection for »motional-amount-momentum» (Sw.,
rörelsemängdsmoment) angular momentum *J = *mvr* is already
quantitatively (*from Chadwick 1932, the
neutron discovery*) defined as the NEUTRON by the quantities *h = *6.62559
t34 JS = *m*_{N}*c*_{0}*r*_{N}
synthesizing *mass*, *charge* (light
propagation as associated with heat, electricity and magnetism) and *spin*
as the fundamentals in physics. It also needs to be defined through a *the
primary Planck energy mass destructor*

E = *hf = h*(*c/r*) = *mcr*(*c/r*)
= *mc*^{2}: the ultimate energy source — as in our Sun and the
stars.

In UniverseHistory UH, this primary mass destructor entails,
contains and explains *the principle structure of mass* (PHYSICS7) which — *the mass
destructor* — does not allow any remaining constituent parts or particles (*m*→γ):

*m = m*(*n*→∞)^{–1}(*n*→∞)
= *m: mass, the fundamental atomic nucleus beginning from the Planck ring
Neutron h = mcr — gravitation — ***has no
constituing parts**. *Mass can be understood and so mathematically
expressed as consisting of a constantly growing *(*n*→∞)*
unlimited amount of a limitless disappearing *1/(*n*→∞)*
mass part* (*Potential
barrier*). **No particles**.
*Structure*.

That is: The *Atom* must be written on a **zero angular momentum form** of the type

**0 = J _{0} + NJ_{1}**.
In related physics (TNED) the

THE INSTRUMENTAL EPOCH SCATTERING EXPERIMENTAL PROTON RADIUS.

In this (Jul2023+) continuing presentation, the different TNED deduced aspects on the two morphologically different form factor nuclei A=1 and A>1 is given from

DEDUCTION and Derivation.

See also the different sections in ARTICLES.

The TNED deduced nuclear physics properties are further exposed in comparison with experimental results from the sections

ReHofstadter1956, HofstadterTNED and AngeliTNED with the Angeli2004 comparing collected experimental data on nuclear size and charge properties.

Kref: TheNEUTRON ¦ FormFactor

SOME BASIC

GEOMETRICAL polygonial PROPERTIES

**The toroid raw connection** for the
summing of (*a mass number*) *A* hollow toroid SURFACES as built by
the fundamental toroid surface *A=*1, is deduced from the hollow toroid
geometry property in (RAcon)

R_{A} = *r*_{A}[(cos 180°/**N**)^{–1}–1]+2(*r*_{A}+*r*^{2}**m***A*/*r*_{A}) in PREFIX** x**SIN

**K **=
*R/r*

**R/t = C**

2*A = *360°/N
¦ *A* = 180°/N ¦ **cos**(180/N) = **C** ¦ *a*/(*b+a*)
= **cos***A* = **cos**(180/N) = **C** , = 1/(*b/a+*1) ; 1/C – 1 = *b/a* ¦ PREFIX** x**SIN

These mentioned are the related
physics’ Planck toroid form factors through the two variables **N**, the number of subrings, and **m** = *b/a* (= **t/R**).

**The Toroid
geometrical mathematics — calculating rotational areas and volumes — relate
back in history to Paul Guldin (1577-1643: ***The Guldin rules***). See short History
and basic deduction **ELEMENTARY
SURFACES IN MATHEMATICS** of the underlying principle
( general determination of rotating defined lines and curves for
corresponding areas and volumes through determination of their geometric
gravity center).**

The factor **m** is the subring relation between ring gravity circle radius (*b*)
[sometimes
also **t** here]
and body ring (thickness) section radius (*a*). R_{A} (=*r*)
denotes the top ring radius and *r*_{A} denotes the radius in the
first sub fractal level.

**TheNuclearMASSprinciple**:
Kref

TNED EXPLAINING BASIC NUCLEAR PHYSICS

*The
Fractally Disappearing Volume Aspect — ***Toroid Fractal Example** — *see also **TheArgument*

**TNED related
physics and mathematics ***this complex has no representation in modern corridors — guaranteed
none: *

*nuclear mass has no
volumetric property or representation in real steel physics* — **but experimental particle physics has so definitely — with good reason**:** **

**All atomic
nuclear mass is 100% associated with the N=3 first fractal
level toroid rings. In turn they have sub fractal form factors, not here
precisely known except for the second levels rounded m=15 and m=2.
But the TNED deduced Planck fractal hollow toroid ring system ***h = mcr = mc × n(r/n) where n
*→** ∞ exhibits a disappearing »contained mass volume» as the ring
fractals go deeper, removing the higher ring hollow aspect for each lower
fractal. **

**— The
illustration above exemplifies that named volume disappearing hollow ring
toroid fractal principle on a first two comparing fractal levels, same N. The
end station is this (the PlanckRING2
deduction: *** gravitation, the atomic nucleus, beginning
from the
Neutron, has no finite particle constituents: ***gravitation is not a particle****); All nuclear mass relates to an infinitesimally thin ( ***force**, F = ma***) shell — as the fractal volume aspect approaches zero in the hollow
ring toroid fractal mathematical system; There is no rational reasonable mass
density property for the atomic nucleus. But experimental particle (type electron scattering) physics features
such a mass containing property as the nucleus also has a spin —
partly and simplified as a flipped spinning flat coin, no volume, appears as a
spinning sphere, definite volume. We will certainly return to this aspect
further ahead. See the basics from DEDUCTION (**

NuclearTopSPINN: TheNuclearMASSprinciple

**The »battle
between experiment and theory» (WikipediaQuote)
— hence — becomes »a real tricky not seldom paradoxical battle», TNED says, in
the following. The N=3 first sub level actual nuclear mass
top form (S) never directly shows up apart from its natural top spinning
(T) nuclear toroid form. It, »the embarrassing 3», has though — as it may be
interpreted — definite experimental provability. The first and most stunning is
the Alan D. Krisch 1979¦1987 experimental group results
on colliding spin polarized protons (A=1): spin HAS definite
significance in revealing inner structural properties of the atomic nucleus, as
the attacking beam energy increases (RevealingStructure).
The second — and really the first primary — is the 1950+ Robert
Hofstadter pioneering electron scattering experiments —
revealing (and confirming) the actual (TNED) corresponding nuclear charge
volume density property by principle. In his 1961 Nobel lecture
Hofstadter accounts for 13 tested nuclei from 1Hydrogen1 to 86Bismut209, all
with a TNED concordant explaining context. See **

In order to solve for the form factors, the R_{A}-connection
must pass a derivative operation (*Derivation*)
consistent with the most profitable physical/energy provisions: most compact
design, least possible energy losses during shortest possible time.

In this history of deductions (TNEDbegin1993), a final
parametric determination finalized the deduction (*the m=20-factor*) with
the help of the recently mentioned cube graph (*through a »best fit» mean
average determination*). The parameters are exposed more in detail in the
original (Nov2007) Swedish edition *The Nuclear Radii through the Planck Ring*.
In this revisited presentation (Jul2023) the *m*-factor has found a more
precise definition following the actual derivation process. See m15.
For the continued general description, we use the original N3m20 preferences,
unless otherwise noted.

TheRESULT: Kref

*The result 1993+ ..*

— How *the *N=3 ?

*Continue in* HOW.

Given the conditions in the above mentioned Toroid
Fractal Example (*TheNuclearMASSprinciple*),
the concept of the type *density* »KG/M³» in association with the TNED
related atomic nuclear physics and mathematics completely disappears — except
necessarily so in the account for the results in particle experimentation
(scattering experiments).

And that »equation» we have to
solve — *for relevant results*.

See resolution (Aug2023) in *ComparingFrame*.

As the volumetric dimension so apparently, TNED
says, disappears with extending deeper hollow toroid fractals, the only
remaining strict macro cosmic property of the atomic nucleus is: KG/M² — mass *top
nuclear toroid spin* surface pressure. In TNED, it can be calculated for all
the isotopic atomic nuclei. See the whole stable nuclide chart in *TheArgument*.

N3m20results: TheRESULT ¦ INTRODUCTION

*The Atomic Nucleus — ***collisions between spin polarized protons**

**instrumental-experimental
confirmations**

The decisive SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN Alan D. Krisch
May1979 and Aug1978 experimental group contributions:

This is how the Real Steel results all
started .. from 1979 .. in this author’s historical reference ..

SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN August 1987 Collisions between Spinning
Protons p32col.2b ”Most high-energy physicists were
quite sure that spin would be unimportant in elementary-particle
collisions at billions of electron volts of energy. For years this belief was
tested only in a series of difficult experiments done by Owen Chamberlain and
Emilio Segré of the University of California at Berkeley, among others. Then
in the late 1950's Anatole Abragam of the College de France and Carson D.
Jeffries of Berkeley suggested building polarized proton targets. The
technique, which has been quite successful, relies on a low temperature and a
strong magnetic field to polarize the spins of certain electrons in frozen
beads of target material; the magnetic field causes the spins of the
electrons to ”line up.” Microwave radiation is then applied to transfer the
spin alignment of the electrons to nearby protons, making them spin in one
direction. Experiments
employing polarized proton targets in the 1960's and early 1970's at
Berkeley, CERN (the European laboratory for particle physics) and Argonne revealed small but interesting spin
effects in high-energy collisions. Nevertheless, most high-energy physicists still
believed spin was not very important and would become even less so at
higher energies. In 1973 my research group inaugurated a
different approach at the Zero Gradient Synchrotron: we polarized the beam as well as the target.”. ”it
has turned out to be quite wrong” SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN May 1979 The Spin of the Proton p58col.1m: ”It has long been thought, however,
that the influence of spin should decline as the energy of the collision
increases. The reasoning behind this assumption is simple: the energy
associated with a proton’s spin is constant and so it becomes an ever smaller
fraction of the total energy as the collision becomes more violent. At a
sufficiently high collision energy it should make no difference whether two
colliding protons are spinning the same way or in opposite directions. Only in the past few years have
experimental techniques been devised for testing this assumption. It has turned out to be quite wrong.”. |

**Modelled in
Simply 3D in Windows 95** Produced 1995+ for
UniverseHistory ¦ UH

**When (**TNEDbegin1993**)
the first TNED derived results showed up on **the
deduced N3m20** neutron-proton toroid aggregature,
also this author was highly embarrassed. So embarrassed that the **note block**,
and all connecting writs, were duly transported into the farthest corner of the
bookshelf — behind all the other books, safely out of view — for a year. It WAS
embarrassing. So did also the editor react at the time of Scientific American
on a letter attempt to »share the discovery» — my respect for the inspiring SA
source, the above and following quotes from the Alan D. Krisch experimental
group on spinning proton collisions. **

The SA
editor at the time was kind enough to respond with an answer — still highly
respected here in Universe History, for the record:

**The keyword used
in the SA response was ”thin”. Exactly my point to. So: What did break the
ice? **

After a
year THE RIDDLE behind the SA articles result, and the N3m20 deduced mathematics,
still an undeniable fact, had gnawed its way through »the hidden container»
enough to start calling out loud to the author to be reasonable and at least
start looking for eventually (other) more powerful confirming details.

— We had to
give it a fair chance.

**The Deuteron nuclear size****
in the 1967 McGraw-Hill HANDBOOK OF PHYSICS: With a 92.2% confirmation, the
Brains decided to give The Embarrassing N3m20 another chance. Then, it started
to rain. TNED
was born. Most definitely. No way. Don’t even think about it.**

** **

**THE 1979¦1987
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN ***Alan D. Krisch* ARTICLES BACKGROUND to the TNED complex in UniverseHistory:

**The » embarrassing
top spin stripped version» is — what we know — physically impossible: no atomic
particle can be removed from its intrinsic spinning nature, except through mass
destruction. There is however **

**1. »a specially
enlightening experimental confirmation», surprisingly. See quotes and referring
details in**

EXPERIMENTS ON
SPINNING PROTONS CONFIRM THE N3m20 TOROID MODEL

**the two
Scientific American articles: Alan D. Krisch, May1979 and Aug1987.**

**2. and another
principle morphological confirmation:**

**— The
»embarrassing» A=1 versus the more attractive A>1 (Deduction)
exposes a most prominent VOLUME CHARGE DENSITY relationship — **

RevealingStructure: N3m20results

*On the morphological
»embarrassing» A=1 aggregature*

**The core
explaining point (in TNED, related physics — and the experiments) is this:**

**Normally — no
present polarizing energy — the atomic nucleus has »multiple ( resonant)
spin orientation», the form on the right below.**

**The inner
sub-level toroid structure is exposed in proportion to the (scattering)
energy with which a colliding particle approaches the target nuclei. **

**Higher beam
energy reveals more »spectacular behavior». A sentence »most experimental
physicists rejected», as the article author did put it. See the above SA Quote,
and further in General results ¦ Experimental Confirmations ¦ SensaPP.**

See all the SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN 1979¦1987 central
collected quotes on the subject — and the TNED illustrated explanations in THE COLLECTED
QUOTES.

*The most prominent*

The *subject *THEORY is
definitely NOT on the table of the modern academic teaching system. No way.
There is no here known source on planet Earth to fetch comparing sentenses, or
even elementary aspects — because such KILLS (”nuclear radius”)
present modern academic theoretical ideas.

TCQ: N3m20results

THE COLLECTED QUOTES

AS VIEWED IN TNED [1993+] AND ITS RELATED PHYSICS
AND MATHEMATICS

**all categories
the driving motor — experimental particle physics on its top**

THE REAL STEEL INSPIRATION — AND A RIDDLE — THAT LED TO THE BIRTH OF TNED AN UH

*The decisive Alan D. Krisch
May1979 and Aug1978 experimental group contributions:*

TheTNEDresolution: N3m20Results

TNED explanation:

**Considering the
actual TNED toroid ±e ring structure and its — related in detail — electric and
magnetic behavior, the experimental results in the articles seem to be
perfectly explainable on the tight weave of ±e-rings, partly strongly repulsive
and partly attractive over (very) short near colliding distances.**

**AntiParallel
spin: ”often pass through each
other as if they were transparent”. Without a very thin margin on very few N:s, the experimental results would seem
impossible to resolve — by any kind of nuclear model. The N3m20
so seems to »handle all cases» with »no problem at all».**

Separate article, Sw.ed.
Nov2008: the Neutron Decay .. :

*r*_{P} = *r*_{N}(√8)/(1+√3)
= *h*/*m*_{N}*c*_{0} × (√8)/(1+√3) = **1.36621366244489
t15** M ≈ **1.37**
Fermi ¦ *r*_{N} = **1.31966106078449
t15** M ≈ 1.32 Fermi

Nuclear Radii
CHANGE —— through the Electron
Casting

The atom’s magnetic B-Toroid field .. atom physics two
king’s equations in related physics and mathematics

** **

ALL THESE DETAILS DEFINITELY
LIE COMPLETELY OUTSIDE THE PRESENT ESTABLISHED
CORRIDORS. No way.

See also related — and comparing
more in detail — in SPECTRUM AND QUANTUM NUMBERS —
especially on the **N=3** angular
momentums

: the electric displacement [same basic math
in Perihelion
Precession].

See also Wu1957: the atomic nucleus’ »cheer for adopting to TNED»: diametrically
oriented ±e**
emissions as illustrated**:

Related physics TNED
dynamics explanation in CENTRAL CONTACTS [ Nov2007 ].

See also NUCLIDE/fusion RINGS — how TNED
connects primary fusion — heavier atoms from exothermal fusions — rings from Dmax — and how, from a Dmax, their
possible following chemical compositions are assembled through TheForceEquation
[all Sw.ed.].

See also [the resulting] BASIC
CHEMICAL MATRICES from primary celestial Neutron surfaces [»CAP makes CWON»].

See also THE NEUTRON DECAY in TNED, unless already familiar: From
unstable Nuclide to stable Atom.

The quoted two Scientific American articles (May1979, Aug1987) made little sense to this author at that SA issue time — however very inspiring on the enigmatic reported experimental results. And it so remained until the breakthrough around 1993

— these details are described from TNEDbegin.

TCQ — the collected quotes from SCIENTIFIC
AMERICAN 1979 ¦1987 on COLLIDING PROTONS

How: Nis3: TheTNEDresolution

*The original TNED
deduction works from 1993*

HOW THE N=3 PARAMETER CAME AROUND

*The number 3 also figures in
modern quartes — the popular Quark Theory — but has, what we know, no
connection to TNED*

*But how did this decisive *N=3*
part arrive on the desk?*

— How — The N=3 — ?

CubeGraph: HOPr0

TNED1993+ (*Deducing the *N3m20)
— *How it all started:*

**m** = 20

**K** = (2/√3)–1 = [cos(180/**N**)]^{–1}–1
¦ **N=3**

**k** = **0.4404609822**

*r*_{0} = 1

*r*TORO =
**0.44
***r*_{0}*A*^{1/2}

*r*CUBE = *r*_{0}*A*^{1/3}

**Amax300? TNED —
the Neutron Square — has other provisions
on the desk for solving on basic nuclear issues than the general population of
highly appreciated aces in the modern academic corridors. Se TNED explanation
in Max A.**

— By (1993)
simply using the ”**found to provide consistent results**”,
see (*CubeAnalogy*) HOP*r*0
**cube graph** (see also Aug2023 plusCubeGraph)
as a first approximation (»fairly constant nuclear density» property: the late 1900s experimental reports),
then examining (N3m20 1993)
what corresponding MOST CLOSE toroid surface curve would suggest a match. The
m=20 factor was adopted — never calculated — on that premise (an averaged
midpoint of the two curves). On the other hand, the N=3 factor has a history of
its own — very convincing — as exposed below.

*The cube graph — spherical
volume*

*and the toroid graph — toroid
surface*

WHEREAS — theoretically,
mathematically — the most easy and simple way to TEST up the **Nm** form factors — using the orange cube graph as a first
onset approximation — is to keep **N** on a lowest
possible level (that is: **3**),

*as ***N***
in any other higher cases (than 3) will intersect the cube graph on a still
farther from *1* mass number A, meaning that in such a case the blue ToroidGraph
*

*r* = **k***r*_{0}*A*^{1/2}

**k** = [√ 2**m**(2+K)] · [1/(**m**+1+K/2)] after
a **derivation** of the raw form *.. r = f* (*A*)_{1}*
..*

Building heavier A>1 from a given A=1-HollowRING: the
A>1 RING SURFACE AREA depends on a form factor **k**.

See The N3m20
DEDUCTION from 1993 and The PlanckRING basics, unless already
familiar.

See entire math development in **DEDUCTION**.

*stretches far outside any
reasonable conclusive connection with the orange cube graph*

**the Cube Analogy** ¦ HOPr0: **basic
idea**:
ideal homogenous NUCLEAR density;

Building heavier A>1 from a given A=1-KUBE: the A>1
contained r-SPHERE = cubeSIDE r.

GENERALIZED, see Sw. THE Deduction of The PERIODIC SYSTEM
from KeplerRESONANCES
K=2A/t: **The ATOM** is
TheCube — The ELECTRON is TheSQUARE;

The Kepler area momentum 2A/t = 2Af = 2n²fr² builds a 2 6 10
14 18 .. resonant system which quadrature resolves and explains the periodicity
in shells K L M N .. 2 8 18 32 .. BUT HOWEVER APPARENTLY NEVER MENTIONED IN
MODERN CORRIDORS.

The N=3 apparently and unequivocally beyond any the
smallest slightest doubt defines the lowest *tightest* possible angular
momentum — top spin —symmetric order

the following illuminating light
appears: The **N** factor *making a highest
possible precision* on an average (nuclide
mass number *A* scale reasonable) *midpoint with the orange cube
graph*

”**found to provide
consistent results**”, see HOP*r*0

will most certainly be *the
lowest possible symmetrical* building. **Meaning**: **N =3** it is:

The N=3 Argument relies entirely
on MECHANICS: *most tight*.

**Our »CHEER» for
the above orange Cube Graph here in UH relies entirely upon the reported
content and context in our early source HANDBOOK OF PHYSICS — see HOPr0.
As quoted. ”****found
to provide consistent results****”. The basic central: all
atomic nuclei have been experimentally found to be (understood as almost
ideally) of equal density. Hence the (early) popular resemblance between atomic
nuclei and water drops. However, the Planck Fractal Ring structural principle
physics (FormFactor) tightens the spherical
model to a more surface determined summing up mathematics with heavier from
lighter, the blue graph above; The TNED related physics and mathematics
Planck fractal toroid model is NOT based on volume, but (hollow toroid fractal)
surfaces only. See ***NuclearStructure*** from Introduction.**

GRAPHS with r0=1: Unit: 10pixels per A=5 ¦ IntervalMAX: 300 ¦ y(Cube) =
4(5x)^1/3 ¦ y(Toro) = (0.44)4(5x)^1/2.

**NOTE**:

TNED
— TheNeutronSQUARE
— has a (A=300)
mass number limit (317).

See
also the earlier ((Jul2008) attempts to formulate a TNED curve alignment with
experimental nuclear size results in

*The TNED 1993 results:*

Taking the instrumental epochs HOP-table
(1967) with its highest mass number (103 Lawrencium: *A=*257) the midpoint
between the two graphs would lie somewhere around *A=*130-150 (*the TNED deduced limit is A=317*; *anyway
»around 150» if averaging both functions*). See Sw.ed: *Kärnradiens grundgrafer*. See also *Amax300¦317*
in the collected graphical data on atomic mass defect values taken from the
table ATOMIC MASSES 2003, LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL LABORATORY, Atomic Masses
Audi *et al*., 2003:

*Their end nuclide*: 118Ui**293**.

The end picture then (around 1993
*after adopted calculations*) with the adopted **N**=3
gives — through the **k-factor**
— a smaller deuteron radius relation than our TNED deduced 71%
value (*The Deuteron Secret*): a 62%, with a
corresponding **m=20**. And — but — we
note (carefully) that these values (*the ***m***-value*) are approximations — (for the present) no other
preferences known than the here presented.

The more extensive (earlier, 2008) nuclear radius graph presentation — with some contributing collected data — is given in Sw.ed., TNED NUCLEAR RADII (Sw.ed., UH Nov2008).

As for the (2000+) newer scientific community established ideas (”charge radius”, based on laser experiments), see NUCLEAR RADII PART 2 (also the same Sw.ed., UH Jul2008).

See further the present (Jul2023+) FromN3m20ToN3m15 and the resolving (Jul-Aug2023)

*Comparing frame*
¦ DEDUCTION
¦ *Derivation*
¦ DeducingTHErZ.

*The Deuteron complex — the
deuteron secret ..*

**instrumental-experimental
confirmations**

TWO HYDROGEN NUCLEI 1H1 BUILDS A DEUTERON
NUCLEUS 1H2 — see Discussion.

THE (1993) TNED DEDUCED N3m20 toroid form factor
transfer between mass numbers *A*=1 (Hydrogen-1) and *A*=2
(Hydrogen-2, or *Deuterium* with nucleus *Deuteron*) is the outcome
from an exothermal nuclear reaction fusion (TNED deduced *Exothermal nuclear reaction/fusion law*)
— IF the two *A=*1 N3m20 nuclear circumscribed spheres intersect at any
point (*spontaneous exothermal nuclear fusion: the strong near nuclear force
is activated by the
potential barriere*). The solution in the light of the
TNED deduced PLANCK RING DEDUCTION (PlanckRING 1)
means *(see Derivation Result — The Deuteron
Secret) *a resulting more compat deuteron nucleus.

**Excerpt from
the early TNED results in UiverseHistory (Nov2008, first htm-documents). **

** In the deduced toroid mass number equation ( r = kr_{0}A^{1/2}) a corresponding blue curve did expose
»a way too steep raise», intersecting the traditionally consulted
nuclear radius orange cube graph already at low mass numbers. By that time
(1993+) some adjusting factors (adjusted to fit already known data from
established literature) were needed to reach a fair resolution — which
introduced the resulting reduced 62% compact A=2 toroid. And further, that
result has been the UH standard up till now Jul2023 — a deeper understanding
of the significant factors has resulted in a full return of the 71% factor —
with an even better correspondence with the same given experimental values. We
will make an account for that part in a special article here, see From
N3m20 To N3m15. **

** For the moment in this article we continue
the following with the older TNED preferences as illustrated.**

Result: a nucleus with greater compactness — and a smaller greatest extension. That was the resulting math from the equative derivative of the (1993 TNEDbegin) N3m20 resulting complex (TheToroidTest ¦ The TOROID Aggregature).

The TNED results showed the deuteron *nuclear gravity* radius to be
*r*_{0}/√2 ≈ 0.71*r*_{0} (*The
0.71 Criterion*).

This was the found HOP1967 ¦ 71/77=92.2% ¦
confirmation:

The *r*_{0}
reference is the HOP-source given *proton radius* as
explained by the source in section THE INSTRUMENTAL EPOCH SCATTERING EXPERIMENTAL PROTON
RADIUS.

**Copied central
parts confirming the N3m20 TNED deduced Neutron aggregature of the Deuteron
context, NEUTRON PHYSICS, from **

**HANDBOOK OF PHYSICS****, E. U. CONDON, SECOND EDITION, McGRAW-HILL BOOK COMPANY, 1967**

*Connecting the values ..*

Given the suggested TNED derived deuteron radius *r*_{D} = *r _{0}/√2* ≈
0.71

*» .. faulty statements in UH
are not allowed, no way .. find the proof .. or go home ..»*

When reading the above cited HOP-source
details (1995), a passage was found where the deuteron radius was mentioned
(page 9—210), ”the so-called *radius of the deuteron*”. However cryptic in
its context, as it seems

*here simplified terminology
in taking*

*r* for *r*_{o+}
*and*

*a* for *a*’_{(+)np}
*and*

h¹ for the source’s h-bar (*ħ*) = *h*/2π *and*

R for the source’s *r*_{D}
”the so-called *radius of the
deuteron*”

the source’s expression (as simplified) yields

*r* = 2R(1–R/*a*) =
1.7 t15 M, *a* = 5.38 t15 M

where R = h¹/√2µE_{D}
= *h*/2π√2µE_{D}. The term E_{D} is specified
2.23 MeV as the deuteron binding energy.

*Investigating*
h¹/√2µE_{D} ..

*The micro term*

The term µ is not explained (at the actual quoting passage). A possible connection is found on a previous page (9—197)

”where µ is the reduced mass of the system”

But the value 2.23 MeV *is*
just precisely the mass difference

— (1.00866520 + 1.00782519 – 2.01410222)·932 = 2.23 MeV rounded

— so, how to interpret the source’s term µ became an open question; On a closer look, The Elusive Term seemed to have the meaning of the actual deuteron mass;

With R = *h*/2π√2µE_{D}

E_{D} in MeV times T6
times 1.602 t19 Coulomb = E_{D} in Joule, *m*_{D} in
atomic mass units (2.01410222*u*) with *u=*1.66033 t27 KG and
*h*=6.62559 t34 JS

we get the ”*r*_{D}”
= 2.16 T15 M = R rounded.

**But this value does not at all satisfy the equation for ***r*:
The *r*-value in Fermi (t15 M) becomes 2.58 — far from the source’s
specified ”*r = *1.7” Fermi. So: What’sUp?

What on Earth then is the *r*_{D}
standing for in the *r*-context expression? We can solve that problem by
developing the ranks accordingly as

*r*=2R(1–R/*a*), *r*/2=R–R^{2}/*a*=(1/*a*)(R*a*–R^{2}),
*ra*/2=R*a*–R^{2}; R^{2}–R*a*=–*ra*/2 = (R–*a*/2)^{2}–(*a*/2)^{2}.

*Meaning:*We have a second
degree equation to solve for:

*The solution:*

R = (*a*/2) ± √(*a*/2)^{2}
– *ra*/2

*a* = 5.38 t15 M

*r* = 1.7 t15 M

The solutions become in Fermis

POSITIVE ROOT:

—————————————————————————

R = (*a*/2) ± √(*a*/2)^{2} – *ra*/2

= (5.38/2) + √(5.38/2)^{2} –
(5.38)(1.7)/2

= 4.3219007

R = 4.32 ; *Divided with proton radius* *r*_{0}=1.37 ;

**R = 3.15***r*_{0}

NEGATIVE ROOT:

—————————————————————————

R = (*a*/2) ± √(*a*/2)^{2} – *ra*/2

= (5.38/2) – √(5.38/2)^{2} –
(5.38)(1.7)/2

= 1.0580992

R = 1.058
; *Divided with proton radius* *r*_{0}=1.37 ;

**R = 0.77***r*_{0}

*Conclusive result ..*

92.2% VERIFIED.

With the TNED given 0.71*r*_{0},
the source above has suggested a definite 0.71/0.77 = 92.2% verification.

As a tripled value (3.15) seems out of the question (the cube form with A=2 gives 1.26), the reasonable negative root value (0.77) exhibits more credit to our idea of reason.

But as we also have seen, the uncertainties and »foggy terminology» in modern corridors leaves further room for clarifications to be presented more in detail.

See also more revealed and related (angular momentum) by detail
in *The DeuteronSecret*.

*This was (1993+) the first »sort of confirmation»
that exposed »The Central»: *

* *

*— the TNED model could
apparently in no way easily be ignored.*

The author apparently had to find and lure out some other way to kill it.

*And so, by further tests, TNED
just grew stronger ..*

*The Deuteron complex — the
deuteron secret ..*

**instrumental-experimental
confirmations**

The (2023) general established academic
community CONCEPT of ”nuclear radius” is »highly corrupted», TNED says.

See further details on (WikipediaQuote) NUCLEAR RADIUS.

LEAST POSSIBLE ENERGY LOSS ON LEAST POSSIBLE CHANGE
DURING LEAST POSSIBLE TIME — SAME PRESERVED ANGULAR MOMENTUM — exothermal
fusion

BASIC IDEAL FORM: *m***ω**(*r*→*r*/√2)^{2}
+ *m***ω**(*r*→*r*/√2)^{2}
= **2***m***ω**(*r*/√2)^{2} = *m***ω***r*^{2} — J(PROTON)=*m***ω***r*^{2}=J(DEUTERON)=**2***m***ω**(*r*/√2)^{2} real
mass defect 1.52**m**e =
0.041401521%

*See Exothermal nuclear reaction/fusion law
deduced — spontaneous nuclear fusion provided beginning from a Dmax — nuclear circumscribed sphere
limit: *outside repulsion, inside attraction

The 1H2 nucleus Deuteron radius as 1/√2
≈ 71% of the 100% proton radius (lightest stable atomic nucleus)

*the TNED deduction says.* —
The HOP-source DEUTERON 1con

exposes (*as interpreted*) a
corresponding 77% (1967)

The mathematical ranks below was first
exposed 1993+ after the first TNED deductions on the atomic nucleus (TNEDbegin1993+). In this edition
(Jul2023) the expressions have received a sharper edge — and hopefully a more
tight and dense explanatory power.

*All atomic nuclei have one and
the same top spinning angular velocity frequency — related physics and
mathematics, says *TNED

THE FIRST CRUCIAL TNED TEST — The
Deuteron _{1}H^{2}

*The (Hidden) Deuteron Secret (orig.
Jun2008) —* These
here presented results, TNED says, should have clear particle instrumental
verifications — or TNED is done.

*m***ω***r*^{2} + *m***ω***r*^{2} = *m***ω***r*^{2 }»; » **mass increase is compensated
by radial decrease** »: none of this crap makes sense .. **go
home** .. disappaear .. **now** ..

Deuterium
formation’s angular momentum ( **impulsmoment**) mvr in TNED, above-below.
ω* from v = *2π*r*/T*
= *(2π/T)*r = *ω*r*; *mvr = m*ω*r*^{2};
*nuclear top spin* **ω** = 2π*f*
*is universally conserved*.

*m***ω**(*r*→*r*/√2)^{2} + *m***ω**(*r*→*r*/√2)^{2} = **2***m***ω**(*r*/√2)^{2}
= *m***ω***r*^{2} ¦ *m***ω**(*r*)^{2} + *m***ω**(*r*)^{2} = **2***m***ω**(*r*→*r*/√2)^{2}
= *m***ω***r*^{2} = **2***m***ω**(*r*/√2)^{2} = **2***m***ω**(*r*)^{2}
¦ 1H2 ¦

On
the same route then can angular momentum **impulsmoment** mvr in the formation of
Helium-4 from two deuterium nuclei be related to the base radius r för
Hydrogen-1 as

;
**2***m***ω**(*r*/√2)^{2} + **2***m***ω**(*r*/√2)^{2}
= **4***m***ω**(*r*/√2)^{2} = 2*m***ω***r*^{2} ¦ 2He4

Hydrogen-1
and Helium-4 receives thereby same (gravity) nuclear radius r=1 — but on
different inner form factors — with the smaller in-between lying deuteron
radius 1/√2, so that we receive the base picture:

DetailedExplanation: TheFirst

*Resolution — consider the
following adding toroid surfaces on the deduced mathematics*

*A*_{0} +(**fusion**)+
*A*_{0} = *A*_{1} : (*A*_{1}=[*A=*2],
the deuteron) :

————————————————————————————————

*m = ProtonMass:*

*r = ProtonRadius:*

——————————————

J =
*m***ω***r*^{2}
..................... = proton J

=
**2***m***ω**(*r*/√2)^{2} ........... = deuteron
J : **2***m***ω**(*r*/√2)^{2}
= **2***m***ω**(*r*^{2}/2) = *m***ω***r*^{2} ¦ **really**. No doubt.

=
*m***ω**(*r*/√2)^{2}
+ *m***ω**(*r*/√2)^{2}
¦ and this is apparently another
expression for *A*_{0} +(**fusion**)+
*A*_{0} = *A*_{1} :

=
2[*m***ω**(*r*/√2)^{2}] ....... again:

=
**2***m***ω**(*r*/√2)^{2} ........... = deuteron
J : **2***m***ω**(*r*/√2)^{2}
= **2***m***ω**(*r*^{2}/2) = *m***ω***r*^{2} ¦ **really**. No doubt:

=
*m***ω***r*^{2}
..................... = proton J. **Same** angular momentum J. EXACTLY.

————————————————————————————————

IDEALLY
WITHOUT THE MASS DEFECT = the fusing energy work = 1.52**m**e ¦

1/2415.37018
¦ 2.01410222/(1.52×0,000548598) = **0.041401521%**

**With mass defect
**(*m*→γ)** factor included**:

2Jproton 1Jproton .. ».. I give up .. call 911 ..»

*m***ω***r*^{2} + *m***ω***r*^{2} – (*m*→γ) = **2***m***ω**(*r*/√2)^{2}
– (*m*→γ) = *m***ω***r*^{2} – (*m*→γ)

proton + proton = deuteron

WITH A CONSTANTLY PRESERVED TOP NUCLEAR ANGULAR SPIN
VELOCITY **ω**

*The *(*m*→γ)*
ranking terms leave the primary nuclear angular momentums intact .. or ..*

*The *(*m*→γ)*
ranking terms leave the primary nuclear two fusing r*→*r/√2
intact with no further radius decrease .. ..*

.. at the cost of a slight decreasing change in the
resulting angular momentum as a cause of the mass decrease and the preservation
of **ω**

**Deuterium
formation — see also for comparison ****Hofstadters
kurvskara**** with ****volymära laddningstäthetens toppvärden**** — compared with TNED**

**THE DEUTERON SECRET**: *the form factor
derivation that solved the TNED deduction of the PlanckRING Neutron h=mcr atomic nucleus*

**RELATED PHYSICS **it better** EXPLAINS** THE related deduction of the ATOMIC
NUCLEUS —

AND COMPARES IT WITH PRESENT 2023 MODERN ACADEMY ESTABLISHED
IDEAS

———————————————

DEDUCING
The Basic Toroid Radius Hollow Surface EQUATION ¦
ITS
DERIVATION AND THE ATOM NUCLEUS GENERAL MORPHOLOGY — to be
tested

THE RIGHT PART OF THE ILLUSTRATION ABOVE GIVES THE EXACT
DERIVED PROPORTION FOR ALL ATOMIC NUCLEI with mass number A=2 and up.

Further accounts of the calculating order — and the
collected quotes and experimental results for comparison — are given in the main
text.

— **We are fully confident here that all
experimental data will be collected under one and the same fully explaing
order.**

Discussion: Detailed

*As the ranks show:*

We can apparently EQUALLY WITH NO direct mathematical HAZARD
deal with IDEAL 100% MASSES on the fusion equations as these by rank
comparisons anyway cancel on the end mathematics — **mathematics** — station:

IF we would have any viewpoints on this
»mathematics» situation, it WOULD apparently involve »what is going on when
they merge»:

TWO HYDROGEN NUCLEI 1H1 BUILDS A DEUTERON
NUCLEUS 1H2

**—
No.**

— THERE IS NO ”2He2”. The
fusion of 2 × [A=1] aggregates can only come about with one neutron and one
hydrogen nucleus.

— So you keep saying —
Look (ForbiddenFusions):

— INVESTIGATING the
atomic masses more in detail, the above shows up:

— The only EXOTHERMAL
(giving energy, not taking) criteria to be met in an exothermal fusion is that
the fusing agents have capability to secure a WORK — energy — quantity enough
to certify that the fused product has lower — less — atomic mass than the
fusing agents. The calculated account above satisfies that.

— Two Hydrogen atom
nuclei 1H1 will — if spin aligned and positioned inside each others
(circumscribed spheres) potential barriers — very well fuse to one Deuterium
atom nuclei 1H2.

**As the merging
procedure involves mass losses, the initial masses in the equation no longer
hold.**

**So: In the
fusion equations it is the masses before that counts — with the resulting
merged nuclide**

**as a mass
reduced product:**

2Jproton

*m***ω***r*^{2} + *m***ω***r*^{2} – (*m*→γ) = **2**[*m–*Δ*m*]**ω**([*r–*Δ*r*]/√2)^{2}

proton + proton = deuteron

**But also**: When m decreases, **given
r**, the spin **ω** also decreases [compare the ice-dancer]. So:

If the spin **ω** is supposed to be a constant, as TNED
wants it, J¦0K + 3J¦1K = 0, also

r has to decrease as well if m does. So: the r/√2
should as well decrease by some small amount: The deuteron radius then: Not
exactly r0·0.7071067.

THE END STATION SO SUGGESTS [with no here other presented
mathematical proof] that the original J is preserved: no change:

the small reduction Δm in mass is compensated by a
small reduction Δr in radius to certify a constant preserved top spin **ω**.

*m***ω***r*^{2} + *m***ω***r*^{2} =
**2**[*m–*Δ*m*]**ω**([*r–*Δ*r*]/√2)^{2} + (*m*→γ)

=
**2***m***ω**(*r*/√2)^{2}
¦ **playing the movie backwards** : regaining destructed mass

= *m***ω***r*^{2} ¦
and that apparently IS »The Hidden Deuteron
Secret» compressed

We clearly see — the end station train calls — that these
ranks communicate on exact concurring quantities: ” 1 + 1 = **1** ” .. » .. the author needs serious help .. »

TNED in UH has no specific article on
that issue (yet) — except what might be included in the texts »on the fly»;

In this quest, as suggested by the
above ranks — so, in a way:

— A general Reasoning would be that the
(*m*→γ) mass defect energy work is »evenly
distributed among the accounts»:

•
It is — and it isn’t, depending on frame of reference, not further here
discussed (it resembles 5 × 8 +18 = 58, »sort of»);

2Jproton 1Jproton .. ».. I give up .. call 911 ..»

*m***ω***r*^{2} + *m***ω***r*^{2} – (*m*→γ) = **2***m***ω**(*r*/√2)^{2}
– (*m*→γ) = *m***ω***r*^{2} – (*m*→γ)

proton + proton = deuteron

*On the comparing A=*1*
and A=*2:

♦ **Same** angular momentum J. EXACTLY.

— **No, not necessarily**: **ω** = J/*mr*^{2} = *constant*, yes, most
definitely.

— But changes (*mass defect*)
in *m* must reflect changes in *r*. If these work as described above
— *a decrease in m is followed by a decrease in r* — also J must follow to
balance out a net constant angular velocity **ω**: J is not the same. J in 1H2 cannot be *exactly* the
same as J in 1H1.

— The only remaining equivalence
then, is the one of the named *mathematical* character:

*m***ω***r*^{2} =
**2***m***ω**(*r*/√2)^{2}

*Otherwise:*

♦ The energy
work (*m*→γ)
realizing the nuclear rebuild apparently can so be interpreted THAT its work
CHANGES NOTHING IN THE J-part. **It stays put**. »nothing happened».

Strict mathematically there is the possibility
ω = J/*mr²* that a reduction in *m* is balanced by a
corresponding reduction in J, with (omega) ω *and* an ideal *r*/√2
conserved: »the deuteron radius-transfer *r*→*r*/√2
survives». As however no (here) known method exists to check what is what by
experiment, the quest is still open.

*The 1950s Hofstadter electron
scattering experiment clarifies there IS a (huge) morphological difference
between the Hydrogen nucleus and the Deuterium one — as also TNED wants it. See
Generals
Results in TNED (Here revisited in ReHofstadter1956).
So that we can have some confident idea that the more (Derived)
compact nucleus also has some experimental reference relative the more sparse
toroid arms of the A=1 nucleus.*

The result (**N3m20results** ¦ DEDUCTION
¦ *Derivation*)

— *confirmations through
spinning colliding protons and electron charge density scattering examination*

— is the least to say, remarkable

— and SHOULD (*as it has been
indicated*) have some clear spotted reflexions through the experimental
established corridors during the particle experimental instrumentation era
(Chadwick discovers the neutron 1932+).

See the (dramatic) resolution (Aug2023) in *ComparingFrame*.

♦ An ideally reduced toroid radius from *A*_{0}:s *r*
to an *A*_{1}:s *r*/√2

— a remaining 71%

— ought to reflect some notations in the archives

— IF TNED holds.

*That became the first crucial
TNED test*:

See THE (*TNED history 1993+*)
92.2% RESPONSE in the actual article sections, as quoted from HANDBOOK OF
PHYSICS 1967 in

See also the entire DEDUCTION, unless already familiar.

See also the Hofstadter aspect in CHARGE DENSITY DISTRIBUTION.

The large difference (ReHofstadter1956)
between *A=*1 and *A>*1

with Hofstadter’s own words (*Generals
Results in TNED*):

**As the man said
it himself:**

*See
Hofstadter’s compiled diagram in *THE
HOFSTADTER EPOCH.

” Note, however, the large disparity between the average
central densities of the proton and all other nuclei.”,

” The alpha particle ^{4}He is also a unique case
and exhibits a much larger central density than all heavier nuclei.”,

[http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1961/hofstadter-lecture.pdf]:

**The electron-scattering method and its
application to the structure of nuclei and nucleons**, p570 Fig. 8

ROBERT
HOFSTADTER, Nobel Lecture, December 11, 1961

*Continue in*

**TheAtomicNucleus** ¦
Discussion
on changes by fusion ¦ ConfirmingThe71
¦
WikipediaChargeRadius ¦ NuclearSize ¦ Quotes

Separate article, Sw.ed. Nov2008: the Neutron Decay .. :

*r*_{P} = *r*_{N}(√8)/(1+√3)
= *h*/*m*_{N}*c*_{0} × (√8)/(1+√3) = **1.36621366244489
t15** M ≈ **1.37**
Fermi ¦ *r*_{N} = *h*/*m*_{N}*c*_{0}
= **1.31966106078449 t15** M ≈
1.32 Fermi

Nuclear Radii
CHANGE —— through the Electron
Casting

In related physics and mathematics (TNED)
the atomic nucleus has a sharp edge — completely INDEPENDENT OF THE CONCEPT OF
ELECTRIC CHARGE:

•
The Planck constant h= mcr = 6.62559 t34 JS

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————

m **the
neutron** mass 1.0086652u (u = mC12/12 = 1.66033 t27
KG)

c 2.99762458 T8
M/S — light’s free divergence in vacuum

r **1.32**
Fermi ¦ 1.319661 t15 M = **the neutron**
gravity circle **radius = h/mc**

In SPECTRUM the hydrogen energy circle with Planck constant
can be used to deduce also the corresponding proton radius, se THE
PROTON RADIUS: **r0 = 1.37 Fermi**;

Search (26Jul2023) @Internet on »plot of nuclear
charge rms radius» seems to have the following populated hits: 0. Zero. None.
No chart. No visually compiled collected result. Nothing to compare.

*— That must be, more than
anyting else, sensational, given the high estimated Credit on all the expensive
technology used to give a Text presentation on the subject.*

Related physics and mathematics in TNED
is intrinsically 100% no exception free from any connection to STATISTICS (NoStatistics ¦ NoNucleons ——— RAINDROPS/OCEAN).

— However — »TNED says» — USING
statistics (particle scattering) may be useful as a tool for a rough estimate
of underlying FORMS (as in the early pioneering Hofstadter’s experiments). But
IF That statistics itself — as nowadays seems to be the modern academic case —
is raised to BE »the explanation», completely over-giving, practically
abandoning the idea of an underlying FORM, the train apparently has lost its
track. Most certainly yes. Absolutely.

In TNED toroid nuclear
electromechanical dynamics the nuclear STRUCTURE (electric displacement)
is practically IDENTICAL — same — for all types of nuclei INDEPENDENT OF
NUCLEAR CHARGE (Z). So introducing Z-dependency (”charge radius”) practically
destroys the actual physical real steel property of SIZE — TNED says. ON THE OTHER HAND: As educated as
Modern Aces are — what was the alternative? Say again.

That nuclear charge (Z ¦ Intro) HAS
meaning for the present established measurements is perfectly clear. But what
says — makes the connection — that That property has meaning for an actual
nuclear *size *? TNED says: nothing. Nothing says that. »The modern
academy idea of nuclear size has deluded itself on irrelevant, invented,
nucelar size (structure) properties».

— »The established nuclear charge radius rms-values are
quite worthless when it comes to ACTUAL SIZE» TNED says. Say that: that is a
completely erroneous statement. Totally Wrong. Hang’im.

— The measures are (apparently)
consistent (spherical: spin independent) — but does not reflect the actual FORM
(toroid spin). Compare WikipediaChargeRadius.

**The concept of
ELECTRIC CHARGE, electric charge density, charge distribution or other electric
or magnetic properties (**all modern academic statistics**)
is IRRELEVANT — in TNED related basic parametric nuclear ***radius*** contexts. TNED
has no connection between nuclear radius (r) and nuclear
charge (Z):
**

*r*_{Z} = [1/*r*^{3}
+ 3**Ψ***kA/Ze*]^{–1/3}/*r*_{0} ;
*r*Z* * **has** Z connection — provided
**k**>**0** — Hofstadter1956
electron scattering conditions:

rZ EXTENDS WITH INCREASING r A Z ;

*k* = **0** ; *r*Z*
* **has no** Z connection

*r*_{Z}*r*_{0} = 1/*r* ;

*r*_{Z} = 1/*r*_{0}*r*

= 1/*r*_{0}(*r*_{0}**k**√*A*)
; **k** = ½ ¦ A>1

=
2/*r*_{0}^{2}√*A*
; approaches zero with growing A —— *r*Z*
* **has no** Z connection

(*r*_{Z}*r*_{0})^{–3} = 1/*r*^{3} + 3**Ψ***kA/Ze* ;

(*r*_{Z}*r*_{0})^{–3} – 1/*r*^{–3}
= 3**Ψ***kA/Ze* ;

*kA/Ze*
= 3**Ψ**/[(*r*_{Z}*r*_{0})^{–3} – 1/*r*^{–3}] ;

*Ze*
= *kA*[(*r*_{Z}*r*_{0})^{–3}
– 1/*r*^{–3}] /3**Ψ** ;

*Z*
= *kA*[(*r*_{Z}*r*_{0})^{–3}
– 1/*r*^{–3}] /3*e***Ψ** ; INTEGERS (*also A*):

:

*r* = **k r_{0}√A**
;

TNED has no connection between nuclear
radius and nuclear charge — BUT VERY WELL BETWEEN NUCLEAR METRIC charge **extension** rZ AND nuclear radius r, **Nuclear
charge Z**
relies on — what we know — a [ fractal ] matrix INTEGER system connected to THE
PERIODIC SYSTEM: the internal nuclear matrix structure — Nuclear
Matrix Algorithm: KeplerRESONANCES in TNED [»quantized matrices»].

*r*_{Z} = [1/*r*^{3}
+ 3**Ψ***kA/Ze*]^{–1/3}/*r*_{0} ;
*r*Z **:=** *r*_{Z} ¦ *r* **has no** Z connection

(*r*_{Z}*r*_{0})^{–3} = 1/*r*^{3} + 3**Ψ***kA/Ze* ;

1/*r*^{3} = (*r*_{Z}*r*_{0})^{–3}
– 3**Ψ***kA/Ze* ;

*r* = [(*r*_{Z}*r*_{0})^{–3}
– 3**Ψ***kA/Ze*]^{–3} ; the rZ and A/Ze generates a parametric cancel ¦ Table4
col.AY-AZ NuclearSize2023.ods

=
**k***r*_{0}√*A*
; *r* **has no** Z connection

**TNED (**ToroRADIUS ¦ DEDUCTION**) have same
nuclear radius for same mass number (A), independent of nuclear charge (Z) —
because Z in TNED is a limited (rZ) nuclear
***surface***
property (All Cadillacs have same size, but can have different color). In
modern corridors, as to the idea of a nuclear ***radius*** as such, the
TNED neutron (discovered 1932 by Chadwick) fundamental Neutron Gravity Circle
radius **rN=h/mNc0**
has not even an explicit recognition: never mentioned. Searched for. Not found.
Present academy has an intrinsic aversion against any idea of a sharp nuclear
edge, a definite size.**

— The value
is however found (26Jul2023) in association with the terminology: **neutron Compton wavelength **1.31959110000008
on several web pages.

— As
abstract as it comes.

*Extract 15Jul2022 from a
scientific forum @Internet, explaining the heart of the matter:*

”A neutron is not a tiny hard sphere. It’s a tiny bundle of interacting quarks, which are
themselves (probably) point
particles. What’s the radius
of three dogs playing?”.

— Well said — and that is all we can get out of it from
modern quarters.

— The basic bottleneck on ”charge radius” is that it
compromises the actual FORM in that not all nuclei have the same surface charge
distribution — while all nuclei HAVE a size: there is no, and will never be a,
reasonable connection between ”charge radius” and nuclear (gravity circle)
radius. ”Charge radius” (»the most probable nuclear OVERALL SPHERICAL extension
as measured by a specific method») erases any FORM clarification. Like »all
private cars and models are transported by the same huge trailer».

— So, that when modern academic specifications speaks about
charge (rms) radius and nuclear (not rms) radius for a given nucleus, we
honestly have no idea of what the man is talking about — other than A FORM
ABSTRACT; science articles using the ”rms” on charge radius, seem impotent in
explaining what the ”rms” stands for, what it is. It is implied to be
understood, never explained.

Wikipedia on Charge radius
says:

” The qualification of ”rms” (for ”root mean square”) arises
because it is the nuclear cross-section, proportional to the square of the radius, which is
determining for electron scattering.”,

Wikipedia on Charge radius [26Jul2023] .

— See an illustration here in UH for ”cross-section”:

The Wikipedia quoted CONCEPTS reflect a **spheric** idea :

The underlying idea of a ”radius” becomes a highly corrupted
idea

— **for anything except a spherical object** in collecting the general »spherical
mathematically collected data».

Meaning:

No matter how we
deal with the ”rms” issue, it is, and stays,

**a measuring
concept outside the object of study **— whatever the object would be.

Compare the
nucleus as our TNED deduced Planck fractal hollow
toroid, see from Introduction.

**— What IF modern quarters KNEW »exact toroid nuclear radii»:**

— What, exactly, would a corresponding
»scattering collected data» show?

— What would be possible to divulge on the
idea of »a structure»?

It
apparently lies outside the present scientific community apprehending
capability to answer any of these type questions:

**—
»Bury the Cadillac in a ton of snow — and try figure out its color ..».**

As all atomic nuclei HAVE different
dispositions of (surface) electric charge and magnetic moments, MEASURING THE
EXTENSION OF AN ATOMIC NUCLEUS WILL BE LIMITED TO THE RANGE OF THE PENETRATING
MEASURING METHOD. So, modern academic theory uses the idea of a measured ”charge
radius” (by different methods) in classifying a correspondent
idea of »nuclear size»:

— Then a ”Charge Radius” has no
connection to the idea of a form or a shape, not at all, but is only a DIFFUSE
BLUNT BLURRY measuring unit of »a very delusive unclear physical entity». So,
the atomic nucleus in modern quarters has no connection to related physics (at
all) and its basic Planck constant foundation: the neutron.

That is also why the COMPARISON ON
MEASURING VALUES will be »problematic» between TNED and modern
corridors. Like »being happy to» show pictures to a blind. Not very funny at
all.

In related physics ..

In related physics and mathematics (TNED)
we are talking, relating, calculating and referring NUCLEAR RADIUS by the Planck ring
neutron h=mcr nuclear top spin **gravity circle**
(dotted).

The
Atom’s impulse
[ angular momentum ] equation J0K + 3J1K = **0** ¦
The
Atom’s force equation
FBT + FeZ = **0** — NuclearBasics

*r*** the gravity circle radius — the atomic nucleus’ effective
DYNAMIC-MECHANIC nuclear radius.**

**Ñ **(tilde-N) **the nuclear
actual top toroid spin body contour. IT IS HERE SUGGESTED — but without further
proof — that Ñ is for present experimental physicists what a light (laser)
sensing experimental equipment ***might*** divulge on spotting an
atomic nucleus. See further on Deducing The rZ**.

———————————————

TNED
RELATED ATOM PHYSICS’ TWO KING’S
EQUATIONS ¦

* *

* Shorter, related physics:*

*— Gravitation as a fundamental
physical property — the atomic nucleus — cannot be measured — qualified — with
light (electricity, magnetism): light is massless.*

**But modern
academic ideas has forced other properties to reign the basics**.

RELATED PHYSICS AND MATHEMATICS COMPARES MODERN STANDARD:

**light does not
connect kinetics**:

• light is massless;

• **light
develops no centrifugation**
— Solar Eclipse Expedition 1919+, observation comparing mathematics;

• there is no trace
of an inertial force in a celestial light's gravitationally governed orbit or
trajectory;

• **light
propagates massless**;

GRAVITATION;

equal to all matter, cannot be shielded from: **time
independent**;

LIGHT:

not equal to all matter, can be shielded from: **time
dependent**.

— These all basic related physics were (1905+) abandoned
with the rising modern academy cheer for

relativity theory »building bridges between all academic
impossible issues».

Read the RELATED and
explaining math — **deduction,
not consented invention: we leave no one behind**

— and try to break it. If
faulty, we will surrender immediately. Faulty statements are not allowed here.
Still searching.

———————————————

SolarEclipses1900+ ¦ **ExperimentalConfirmations** ¦ AllKeplerMath — tracing all the details, explaining the
modern way ..

Faulty or incorrect statements have been
searched for, none yet found. Search continues. Faulty statement are not
allowed here.

In both the toroid aggregates for A=1
and A>1 (Derivation) the nuclear gravity circle
(GravCirA1
¦ GravCirA2)
is the same as the spin circle radius (r) on which the toroid surface and
volume is calculated. It is in both cases close (0.5) to half the top spin
outer form edge (Ñ).

A1A2spec: GravityCircle

———————————————————————————————————————————————

S surface charge density PARAMETERS: Table3
col.O —— VALUES: Table2 col.AL ¦ Table4 col.X ¦ NuclearSize2023.ods

S surface mass pressure PARAMETERS: Table3
col.O —— VALUES: Table2 col.U ¦ NuclearSize2023.ods : 1H2¦251.05——83Bi209¦481.132 KG/M²

T surface mass pressure PARAMETERS: Table3 col.T
—— VALUES: Table2 col.Z ¦ NuclearSize2023.ods :

*A=*1: 90.834 KG/M^{2} ¦ *A=*2: 239.375 KG/M^{2}
¦ All stable isotopes* *1H2¦239.375—83Bi209¦237.677 KG/M²: AV: 237.5568386227 KG/M^{2}.

*See
also* NuclearToroidRelations.

In modern academy these TNED
elementary details have never had a representation — and never will have: They
apparently bury modern nuclear ideas in »a Primitive». See also in CONFIRMING
THE 71% DEUTERON RADIUS.

— It is as calm and peaceful as it is on the
graveyard: nobody survived.

Continue on the ProtonRADIUS.

Quotes: A1A2spec ¦ GravityCircle
¦ NuclearRadius

REFLECTING
THE MODERN ACADEMIC SPHERICAL NUCLEAR SHAPE

AND
THE EXTENSIVE INTEREST IN CONTINUING ON THE SAME THEME

Abstract:

” Up to now, all charge radius
measurements of the proton and deuteron assumed
uniform spheroidal charge distribution.”,

”
We investigate the nuclear deformation effects on these charge radius
measurements by assuming a uniform prolate
charge distribution for the proton and

deuteron. We solve the energy levels of
the corresponding muonic and electric
atoms with such deformed nucleus and present how the purely
quadruple deformation of proton and
deuteron affects their Lamb shifts. The numerical results suggest that the
deformation of proton and deuteron leads to that the charge radius extracted
from the electronic measurement should be smaller than the corresponding one in the muonic measurement
which assumed uniform

spheroidal charge
distribution.”,

”
If the central values of newest measurements for the proton are adopted,
the proton would have a prolate structure with the 0.91 fm long axis and 0.73
fm short axis. Further improved precise charge
radius measurements of the proton and deuteron will help us to pin down
their shape deformation.”,

Summary p11:

” Proton radius puzzle has been a fundamental physical problem since the
precise proton charge radius extracted from the muonic hydrogen was reported in
2010.”,

NUCLEAR
DEFORMATION EFFECTS

ON
CHARGE RADIUS MEASUREMENTS OF THE PROTON AND DEUTERON

Lin *et
al*., Nov2019 ¦ *Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing*

”
This method yields the values 1.2 × 10^{–13} A^{1/3} cm
for the nuclear radius, if the nucleus is

assumed to be
spherical and to have a uniform
charge distribution.”,

HOPr0, Method (4).

*3.4. The two-liquid drop model*

” The smooth behavior of the radius
surface renders its

interpretation possible by a simple model, which is a

simple extension
of the traditional liquid-drop approach.

Here only the main characteristics and
results

are described and details will be
published elsewhere.

The model works
with uniform density distributions (by

sections) for protons and neutrons
separately.”,

Angeli2004p191.col1.b

The excerpt proves an extensive general scientific
community experimental nomenclature usage of spheroidal shapes with ”uniform
density distributions”:

— AS IF already settled that the atomic nucleus is ”round”.

— It isnt, TNED says.

Angeli2004p191.col2.t

**HOPr0** ¦ ProtonGravityCIRCLE ¦ NUCLEAR RADIUS

FROM PLANCK CONSTANT,
ELECTRON MASS, NEUTRON MASS, AND LIGHT’S PROPAGATION VELOCITY IN VACUUM

*Concurrent results with the
(1960-1999 here termed) instrumental epoch’s standard values (HOP
Handbook of Physics, E. U. Condon, McGraw-Hill 1967)*

THE NEUTRON RADIUS AND THE PROTON RADIUS IN RELATED
PHYSICS AND MATHEMATICS

**the basic terms
are the same as from Niels Bohr, however more developed in TNED**, see from SPECTRUM AND QUANTUM NUMBERS

DERIVED IN PART and compiled FROM SPECTRUM — THE TNED
DEDUCED HYDROGEN
SPECTRUM ENERGY CIRCLE R *below*

*See full mathematics
description in*

Nuclear Radii
CHANGE —— through the Electron
Casting

*The*PROTON*GravityCircleRadius r*_{0} = 1.37
Fermi ¦ 1 Fermi = 1 t15 M = 10^{–15} M

*r*_{N}* = h/m*_{N}*c*_{0}*
=* **6.62559 t34** JS ÷ (**1.0086652**
× **1.66033 t27** KG × **2.99792458 T8**
M/S) = **1.3196610608** t15 M ≈ **1.32**
Fermi ; neutron gravity
circle radius

*r*_{N}* ×*
√8/(1+√3) .......... = **1.36621**366244489 t15 M directly from the **NeutronSquare** = *r*_{0}

*r*_{0} = (*m*** _{e}**/

.................................. = **1.36621**6806510 t15 M from Planck constant and the Hydrogen
Spectrum’s Energy Circle, TNED improvements from the 1913 Niels
Bohr atom model

WHAT WE KNOW: neutrons don’t fuse.
THE NEUTRON Nuclear STRUCTURE MUST FIRST BE
ACTIVATED »adoptated» BY AN ELECTRON MASS EMISSION FOR THE NEUTRON TO RESPOND
TO A CLOSE EXOTHERMAL — one that gives energy out — NUCLEAR FUSION REACTION. SO
THE DEUTERON NUCLEUS WILL BE BUILD AS SOON AS EITHER ONE OF THE TWO CLOSE
NEUTRONS HAS REACHED A PROTON MARKER MAKING THE FUSION 0n1 + 1H1 = 1H2 releasing 2.225 MeV
exothermal energy [hExoterm2020.ods, Table1, automated exothermal calculations on the
Audi et al Berkeley Laboratory nuclear data 2003: we type in the typical atomic
ID parameter for a given atom, type 1H1, 2He4, 0n1, and so on in two separate
input cells, and the result on Enter informs if the exothermal fusion is OK or
not, see the TNED deduction of the Exothermal in Exothermal nuclear reaction/fusion law. If OK, we get the energy parameters directly — so
that we can check on any more established reference and see that the data
communicates].

— BECAUSE THERE IS or can so be mathematically understood to
be A SMALL NUCLEAR SIZE SHIFT WHEN NEUTRON BECOMES A PROTON — the actual TNED
deduced r0 ProtonRadius from
TheHydrogenSpectrum on the LeverResemblance, see Nuclear Radii
CHANGE —— through the Electron
Casting — WE CAN USE THE NEUTRON SQUARE TO APPROXIMATE THE
RANGE OF THAT NEUTRON-PROTON NUCLEAR RADIUS FRACTION. And ,as seen, these values
from the different methods differ only from the 6:th decimal.

— IN THE NEUTRON SQUARE, THE HORIZONTAL AXIS 0-60 DENOTES
THE MASS NUMBER (A) OF A SPECIFIC ATOM’S NUCLEUS. THE DEUTERON 1H2 HAS A=2.
FURTHER ALLOWING A PRIMARY NEUTRON FOR GENERATING A DEUTERON RADIUS AS its
1/√2 FRACTION — see The DeuteronSECRET in Deuteron2CON
— NOW RELATING THE LARGER NEUTRON CIRCLE TO BE AN ALIAS FOR A PROTON exothermal
fusing RADIUS r0, WE RECEIVE THE ACTUAL FRACTION rN/r0 = (1+√3)/√8
= 0.9659258263. AS rN ALREADY IS GIVEN FROM PLANCK CONSTANT, rN = 1.31966..,
THE CORRESPONDING PROTON RADIUS BECOMES r0 = **1.36621**.. Rounded **1.37 Fermi**. That is the same as the quoted
approximated instrumental epoch’s HOPr0 value.

— THE TNED CALCULATED ATOMIC WEIGHT (U in
Dalton, u)
FOR THE DEUTERIUM ATOM AS ABOVE THROUGH THE NEUTRON SQUARE atomic mass defect mD-relation IS

**1H2**[mD]** = 2.9275417009** = [A=2]×1.0086652(1
— 0.000548598[6—(58/58)(1/5)√
60² — 58²])

**1H2**[mU]** = ***Am*_{N}(1
– *m*D*m _{e}*) =

— And we should notice that TNED data has no other affecting
probe on the actual subject of object than the NeutronSquare.

RELATED PHYSICS ONLY: When the Neutron decays to a Hydrogen
atom, the neutron ejects an **e– quantity ring mass** as an extension of the nucleus: the
neutron — becoming a proton + surrounding nuclear symbiotic electron mass. Its
gravity circle is pushed slightly outwards, the same time transferring a negative
magnetic moment to a positive ditto. See NuclearStructure
on the principle STRUCTURE of the atomic nucleus in related physics, unless already
familiar. The transfer can be mathematically described through a conventional
lever. See Nuclear Radii
CHANGE —— through the Electron
Casting.

The following below shows how related physics relates Planck
constant h=mcr basics of proton size from the neutron.

*m*** _{e}** =

*m*_{N} = *m*(N)*u
* = 1.008665200*u*

*r*_{N} = *h/*(*m*_{N}*c _{0}*) =

**The Neutron
gravity circle radius**
rN —— conv. ”Compton wavelength” in
Planck constant h = mcr.

*r*_{0} = (*m*_{e}*r*_{N}*c*_{0}/*h*)(*r*** _{e}** +

*r*_{0} = (*m*_{e}*r*_{N}*c*_{0}/*h*)(*r*** _{e}** +

*r*_{0} = (*m*_{e}*r*_{N}*c*_{0}/*h*)(*r*** _{e}** + πR[1–

*r*_{0} = (*m*** _{e}**/

*r*** _{e}** = R/π√8 ;

*r*_{0} = (*m*** _{e}**/

*r*_{0} = R(*m*** _{e}**/

R = *h*/(*m*_{e}*c*_{0}π)
;
the actual energy circle R as TNED deduced in the
hydrogen spectrum (same as the Bohr model)

*r*_{0} = (*m*** _{e}**/

*r*_{0} = (*m*** _{e}**/

*r*_{0} = **1.366216806510**
t15 M ≈ **1.37 Fermi** ; same values as in the NEUTRON SQUARE — here derived from
Planck constant h

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE LEVER RESEMBLANCE r0 AND THE
SIMPLE NEUTRON SQUARE SPOUSE r0 IS

r0LEV/rN =
**1.03527**85629
¦ a

r0NES/rN =
**1.03527**61804
¦ b ¦ a/b = 1.0000023013

*The term nuclear size or
nuclear radius has no longer a representation in Wikipedia. *

*It has been replaced by Charge
radius — based on corresponding experimentation:*

*— In modern corridors, the
atomic nucleus has no Sharp edge or contour.*

*— In Related physics it most
certainly has, a Very — but there is (2023) no direct
measuring instrument.*

IF THE READER HAS FOUND PROOF THAT THESE STATEMENTS ARE
FAULTY, WE WILL SURRENDER IMMEDIATELY.

NUCLEAR RADIUS — NUCLEAR SIZE

The general CONCEPT of ”nuclear radius” — is [ 2023 ] highly
corrupted

— even though the atomic nucleus has the highest sized
density Dmax of all matter

and SHOULD have the highest SHARPEST contour definition of
all known whatever

*Present — and traditional
1900+ — Modern Academic viewpoint:*

TNED: TAKING A SPHERICAL
ASPECT ON THE INNER STRUCTURE OF THE ATOMIC NUCLEUS, EFFECTIVELY FROM SQUARE
ONE DESTROYS THE FUNDAMENTAL POSSIBILITY OF UNDERSTANDING ITS NATURE — THE
MODERN ACADEMIC WAY:

” Nuclei are composed of
nucleons which themselves are built from fundamental particles called quarks. This study built a picture of spherical object
with charge density *ρ*(*r*)
= 3Z*e*/4π*R*^{3} possessing a positive charge +Z*e*,
equals the magnitude of charge (–*e*) of orbiting leptons. From this
nuclear model, a new quantity is proposed, based on the study of *β*+-decay and Coulomb energy
difference, to measure the nuclear size.”,

A
NEW MEASUREMENT OF NUCLEAR RADIUS FROM THE STUDY OF

β+-DECAY
ENERGY OF FINITE SIZE NUCLEI

— *Aliyu
Adamu* 2020¦2021 — PDF-document, p46-col.1

A representative academic description 2023.

WikipediaDisinform ¦
**NUCLEARradius**

And that is the end of it:

WIKIPEDIA,
*Charge radius* (no »nuclear radius» article exists) 20Jul2023

” The problem of defining a radius for the atomic nucleus has some similarity to that of defining a radius for the entire atom”.

— Yes. We can see that ..

— »The Populations have a hell of a Feast in there ..
sharing prises and consented admirations .. so well half would be enough .. ».

THE MODERN ACADEMIC POPULATIONS’ CHEER FOR **finite
particle explanations**
apparently spherical such HAS apparently CLOUDED THE POTENTIAL OF USING THE
populations’ INSIDE naturally native CODE OF NATURAL INTELLIGENCE: structure.
**The atomic nucleus is intrinsically free from finite
particles**,
TNED says. See deduction from THE NEUTRON: 1 = 1/n · n. Still a UNIT.

ComparingQuotes: WCR

*”Charge radius”* — BASIC: compare The
Atomic Nucleus and its TNED deduced nuclear
charge surface extension with the Angeli2004
”Nuclear rms charge radii” data on stable isotopes in ComparingFrame

THE WIKIPEDIA — AND PRESENT ACADEMIC — IS APPARENTLY
A measure CONCEPT. NOT ANY ACTUALLY ATOMIC NUCLEAR PROPERTY — UNLESS SO PROVEN
AND CLARIFIED.

— »I mean .. The Concept is nowadays so established in
modern quarters, that is has to be true .. so many cannot be wrong .. precision
measures .. ». Modern Science reaches New Heights. MustBuyBook.

*Compare *WikipediaDisinform*
first a — related — vindicated scientifically corrected formulation:*

’Later studies found an empirical
relation between the now (2000+) present new scientific community consented
academic concept named *charge radius*, which is the now preferred term
before some of the older (1950+) physics fact books terms *charge
distribution* and *nuclear radius* [HOP*r*_{0}1967],
and the mass number, *A*, for
.. where the .. can be
interpreted as the present scientific consented term *the Compton wavelength*
..’.

WIKIPEDIA
*Charge radius*, History, 14Aug2023

” Later studies found an
empirical relation between the
charge radius and the mass number, *A*, for heavier nuclei (*A*
> 20):

*R* ≈ *r*_{0}*A*^{1⁄3}

where the empirical constant *r*_{0}
of 1.2–1.5 fm can be interpreted as the Compton wavelength of the proton. This
gives a charge radius for the gold nucleus (*A* = 197) of about 7.69
fm.[8]”.

” Since the mass difference in
question can be obtained experimentally (for instance, from the energy of the *β*
decay of one into the other), one obtains a measure for the nuclear radius. The radii obtained in this
way are closely approximated by

*R = A*^{1/3}*r*_{0}
*r*_{0} = 1.37 × 10^{13}
cm (3.3)

”.

While »the old classic school» (*McGraw-Hill
Handbook of physics series*) associates the idea of the atomic nucleus to
something that *has* a definite extension in space (”The Size of the
Nuclei”, HOP-section 1 p9—11), independent of other properties, the present
(Wikipedia and others established, the *WikipediaQuote*)
apparently has degraded the old term and idea to »something more delusive»
which (TheQuote) ”has some similarity to that of defining a radius for the
entire atom”.

*Wikipedia is NOT a source of
scientific terms, only the reporter — but is (sometimes, as here) practicing
its Oblivion — apparently preferring a status before any of its understanding.*

*Compare, truly:— »We do not
yet know any precise measure of the atomic nucleus — but have most certain and
precise precision measuring data, however unable to pin point the object of the
subject. These are the difficulties .. ».*

As so, it reflects an academic community that has given up on the actual idea: universe’s most extraordinary sharp object, or subject.

Here in UH we continue on the older school manners — until its use will be proven as so exactly primitive as modern quoting sources suggest. Related physics:

• atomic *nuclear size* (ToroRing*GravityCircle*RADIUS
¦ **Planck
constant**, *TheNeutron*
*h=mcr*) and atomic nuclear *charge radius extension* (DeducingTHErZ)
have completely different atomic nuclear domains in related atomic nuclear
physics.

• However, these are easily confused *and so explained* in
experimentally particle physics due to the fact that all atomic particles have *spin*
— and so more or less appear as ideal (*charged*) freely existing spheres.

• Using the term ”charge radius”
in general on the subject of atomic nuclei extension in space, hence, *related
physics says*, creates (deep) confusion — because atomic nuclear ”charge
radius” has nothing at all to to with a sphere, not at all to do even with an
enveloping volume. No way.

THE PRESENT MODERN ACADEMIC CONSENSUS
ESTABLISHED-INVENTED PROVISIONS DESTROY ANY REASONABLE UNDERSTANDING — there is
no *mutual* comparing frame:

» .. The conditions were better year 1311 .. »

*As modern experimentation from
some 2000 increasingly has abandoned (» ..the ship has broken down ..») the
classic 1900s particle — gravity — scattering experimentation ..*

As modern ideas have estranged
themselves from a real approach — related physics and mathematics TNED says —
by inventing instead of *deducing* (PHYSICS FIRST PRINCIPLE), the more
ambitious attitudes from the beginning of the 1900s have become *correspondingly*
»dried to death». Today (2023) the above quoted is — what we know —
representable for the entire populations in established quarters on the subject
of our basic constituing parts: our atoms and their nuclei. What we know: Not
many persons understand the context on the present academic level — if any.

A (much) more exhaustive (Jul2008) overview on the different aspects between classic scattering and the newer laser techniques — and their results by quotes and TNED remarks and comparisons — is given in NUCLEAR RADIUS PART 2.

WikipediaChargeRadius ¦ ProtonRADIUS

**TheHammerExplanation** ¦ EquationToSolve
¦ **AngeliTNED** ¦ ItIsTNED

ComparingQuotes — **gravitation** — the atomic nucleus,
gravitation’s fundamental form — **is not a particle**

NOTE TO THE COMPARING FRAME RESULT:

♦ No possible TNED way, what we know, without the
Hofstadter1956 results. No way. See all the details from ReHofstadter1956
— the onset to DeducingTHErZ.

•
ALSO not possibly realizable without a safely deduced physical constant
: *r _{0}* :

*r*_{0} = (*m*** _{e}**/

**We have
(exactly) the same comparing situation here between the Angeli2004
collected experimentally results and TNED results (***DeducingTHErZ***), as in the Q/V **

COMPARING FRAME

*The old school terminology:*

” .. These two last constants can
be interpreted as the mean square distance of the protons from their center of
mass and the diffuseness of the nuclear surface. Those last quantity 2*z*
is. crudely,, the distance in which the proton density drops from three-fourths
of its maximum value to one-fourth of this value.”,

HOP NUCLEAR PHYSICS 9—12b

;

” The best high-energy electron scattering experiments have been made by Hofstadter and his collaborators. Their interpretation, by Yennie, Schiff, and their collaborators, does not yet give the functional dependence of the proton density, as a function of the distance from the center. However it does allow the determination of two constants characterizing the proton distribution, in contrast to the single constant given by all other measurements.”,

HOP NUCLEAR PHYSICS 9—12b

It has already from the academic beginning (1900+)
been implied »a general ball idea» where the atomic nucleus consists of a
summing mass number *A = n+p* of neutrons and protons. While that idea has
been literally adopted in modern corridors, still going strong (Aug2023), TNED
(1993+) uses a basic nuclear surface *np structure*
to explain an atomic nucleus based on a Planck constant fractal hollow toroid
ring *h=mcr=c(mr/n)n=h* **electric displacement** — where no finite internal
nucleons or particles exist at all: Gravitation’s fundamental form, the atomic
nucleus beginning from the neutron *h=mcr=* 6.62559 t34 JS: gravitation is
*not* a particle. TNED distinguishes sharply between material physics (the
atomic universe) and mass physics (its explanation [*nuclear physics*]).

ItIsTNED: ComparingFrame ¦ DeducingTHErZ
¦ ToroRADIUS

The 2004 Angeli nuclear charge radii table (Angeli2004)
— AND TNED

— IT IS AS IF that table (and all
the others) — behind the experimental curtains, without having been noticed by
the experimentalist and physicist — is *related to a real steel atomic nucleus’
gravity circle in the form of a The proton radius*
(1.37 Fermi) — *on a *TNED* related and explained nuclear
morphology (TheHammerExplanation)*:

*r _{0}* = (

*r*_{0} = (*m*** _{e}**/

*r*_{0} = **1.366216806510**
t15 M ≈ **1.37 Fermi** ; same values as in the NEUTRON SQUARE — here derived from
Planck constant h = 6.62559 t34 JS

— All experimentation on
exploring the atomic nuclear properties (scattering .. affecting .. impact .. )
affects *the nuclear gravity circle radius* by pushing or drawing on the
nuclear mass. Taking the (scattering statistical) data together, that type
should, possibly, have a basic role to play in the end result (*as hidden,
until revealed*). But the details of this suggested hidden aspect is not
known here (*possibly further in TheHammerExplanation*) in any other way
than on the following obvious result.

** **

AngeliTNED: ComparingFrame

All TNED data orange
in UniverseHistory on nuclear size presentations are uniformly given in the
classic (Hopr0)
HOP r0 preference r0 = 1.37 Fermi, also deduced here in The
PROTON radius.

**The Angeli2004
atomic nuclear **”charge”** radii values
are given from the source in 1.00 Fermi units, as quoted below from the source
— and so directly plotted with no change in scaling value directly here **blue**
on **a
corresponding TNED nuclear fraction relation** TNED r0 = 1.37
Fermi **rZ ÷
r ×
rZ** vertical axis unit scale ** —— »as IF so».

**Angeli2004**
p194, Explanation of Tables

**The resulting
graphs — blue and orange dots — suggests that all experimental (scattering and
other) collected data connects to TNED, the orange function ( rZ)²/r.
The diagram example above shows the orange HOP table stable
isotope nuclides on the TNED function (rZ)²/r in r_{0} = 1.37 t15 M units.
It apparently matches the corresponding stable bulk of isotopic nuclei from the
Angeli2004
data, but on the form of **

**— in Fermi =
1.00 t15 M units. See further in ***TheHammerExplanation***. TNED has nothing of such a kind: no (***modern academic spherical
ball shaped***) **”charge radius”.

— Only *nuclear surface* charge *extension*,
*r*Z.

**— The HOP
table’s stable 284 isotopic nuclei from 1H1 to 83Bi209, have been extracted and
included (**colAS
NuclearSize2023.ods**) from the total Angeli2004 799 stable and unstable nuclide data.**

Table4 NuclearSize2023.ods col AS and AT

**Any way we
reckon on this strange coincidence — modern academic collected experimental **

Why: AngeliTNED

THE ORANGE GRAPH APPARENTLY CERTIFIES THE
MATHEMATICAL TNED VERSION OF MODERN EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS (The Angeli2004
collected nuclear data) — ON THE ”CHARGE RADIUS” PROPERTY. APPARENTLY ALSO
EXPLAINING (*r*Z)²/*r* HOW THOSE DATA WERE EXPERIMENTALLY COLLECTED
AROUND THE TNED ATOMIC TOROID NUCLEUS.

Unless someone can disclaim the coherence as
nonsense, of course.

— Why the relatively large disparity
in the blue left lighter part of the chart? (*NeutronExcess*)

** **

**From
20Calcium40 — with TNED nuclear charge structure terms:
the ***electric
displacement*** — the number of n-structural
ring contributors begin markedly to exceed the number of p-structural ring
contributors. Nuclei from this (vertically dotted) limit are (in a TNED term)
»JumboNeutrons». See the NuclideAZ map
in TNED. **

** In referring this broader view to the
general NeutronExcess diagram picture of
the natural atomic isotopic nuclear chart, and the modern academic apparently
not so precise idea of the SHAPE of
the neutron, proton and the deuteron although so academically frequently used
to »explain heavier nuclei» (the academic nucleon and quark theories),
the first part of the chart is suggesting a (much) more sensitive response to a
resulting dis-alignment (modern academic calculated added experimental
parameters, See Quotes), than the heavier part of
the chart. As the nucleus grow bigger and heavier, the disparities decrease —
and leaves a chart end score of 100%. **

**— Also note the
possible different methods of experimentation. There are results ( Whole
picture) in the history of nuclear size measurements that
adopt more closely to the beginning of the basic orange. Some of these data (Kaplan,
HOP,
Osawa, Tomaselli and Suzuki) are collected and compiled in **

*r¦rZresult*:*
r*Z is always less than the toroid nuclear gravity circle
radius *r*. Mass number *A:*

*— In TNED the number of primary NEUTRONS in a FusionRing building a
heavier nucleus from exothermal fusion. See FusionRing.*

*A>1*: The relation *r*Z/*r*
begins from 1H2 with 69.33% , rises to 99.96% on 2He4, and
ends decreasing on 83Bi209 with 87.34%.

*A=1*:
The relation *r*Z/*r* has only the N3m15 nucleus 1H1 with
99.99973718% *r*Z/*r*.

**— Hence: Most clearly concordant as with the Hofstadter results**
(*sensing the nuclear charge, and thereby a principle scattering scoring
»charge distribution»*):

**Larger nuclei
have larger nuclear disc charge areas, scoring more hits (***general electron scattering***) the larger the nucleus is. The end chart proves almot a 100% score.**

Small nuclei have small *r*Z
*relative the amount and time bombarding (electron) scattering agents* —
meaning: There is a greater *failing* score on small nuclei (*relative
the actually nuclear gravity circle radius r sensing volume*). Larger nuclei
have a much better chance of being spotted on their larger nuclear surface’s *electrically
displaced* charged* *disc: a larger charged disc
apparently collects scores close to 100%. See also on *Hofstadter/TNED.*

**What
experimental physicists have been experimenting on, TNED suggests. Compare
the WikipediaQuote**.

**— If the reader
can disclaim these results — by solid argumentation, no messing — we will
surrender immediately.**

Continue on NUCLEAR SIZE.

TheHammerExplanation: ComparingFrame

The Hammer Explanation

*The proof:*

*IF it would be so — as present
scientific community seems to favor — that the value behind the HOP/TNED unit r _{0} factor would
be undefined, »just an arbitrary number» — the proof about to be explained in
this article would have no solid reference. However as it has — from the simple
(Bohr model) Hydrogen Spectrum and its (TNED) deduced energy circle and the
central Planck constant — the r*

*r _{0}* = (

*r*_{0} = (*m*** _{e}**/

*r*_{0} = **1.366216806510**
t15 M ≈ **1.37 Fermi** ; same values as in the NEUTRON SQUARE — here derived from
Planck constant h = 6.62559 t34 JS

*Background — Comparing
Frame *

THE ORANGE DOTS

are the TNED calculated (*r*Z)^{2}/*r*
values from the (dramatic re-visited 1956 Hofstadter electron scattering *Hofstadter
Nobel lecture 1961*) results. These in turn based on the
present TNED DEDUCTION (N3m15) and the *Derivation*
(N3m2) of the Planck constant *h=mcr* fractal ring atomic nucleus complex
(TNEDbegin1993
¦ **NoStatistics**).

— **That vertical scale** is in *r*_{0}= 1.37 Fermi units (*TheClassicProtonRadius*
¦ HOPr0).

THE BLUE DOTS are the Angeli2004
”*nuclear charge radius*” data (799
nuclei specs, from which data the corresponding HOP-table’s 284 stable isotopes have been extracted for
this comparison).

— **That vertical scale** is in Angeli’s *R*(fm) = 1.00 Fermi units.

So:

— What’sUp?

The present academic Experimentalist’s atomic
nuclear physicist reference knows of no ”*r*_{0}=1.37 Fermi preference in
practical nuclear physics”. But practical nuclear physics *r _{0}* apparently do so (

** **

**— Nature is
smarter than modern academic aces. Apparently so, Much too**.

— We could very well stop at that station, proving
the stated only by reminding on the actual coherent data (Angeli2004
¦ Comparing frame ¦ EquationToSolve);
Cannot be hidden.

**— As in the
other similar comparisons TNED/MAC ( mass defects theory,
Hofstadter scattering results), it is the first
part of the nuclear charge that exposes the largest deviations:**

Modern Academy Theory? No way. No mother god
loving way.

** **

**In modern corridors
one uses (***»unconditionally»,
Quotes***) a spherical (liquid drop) model for the atomic nucleus. The
difference to TNED in the first part of the nuclear charge ( mass
defects) is outragingly huge, and (**

*The Angeli2004 source:*

A
CONSISTENT SET OF NUCLEAR RMS CHARGE RADII: PROPERTIES OF THE RADIUS SURFACE R(*N,Z*)

I.
Angeli, Institute of Experimental Physics, University of Debrecen, Hungary ¦ Available online 10 May 2004 ¦ ScienceDirect free PDF document

*Abstract qoute *from the
ScienceDirect ELSEVIER *free* @Internet publication * Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 87 (2004)
185–206*: ”A set of 799 ground state nuclear charge radii is presented.
Experimental data from elastic electron scattering, muonic atom X-rays, K_{α}
isotope shifts, and optical isotope shifts have been taken into account that
were available up to January 2004.”. *So, the Anglei2004 nuclear size data
should be representative for the collective present scientific community.*

All TNED data orange
in UniverseHistory on nuclear size presentations are uniformly given in the
classic (Hopr0)
HOP r0 preference r0 = 1.37 Fermi, also deduced here in The
PROTON radius.

**The Angeli2004
atomic nuclear **”charge”** radii values
are given from the source in 1.00 Fermi units, as quoted below from the source
— and so directly plotted with no change in scaling value directly here **blue**
on **a
corresponding TNED nuclear fraction relation** TNED r0 = 1.37
Fermi **rZ ÷
r ×
rZ** vertical axis unit scale ** —— »as IF so».

**Angeli2004**
p194, Explanation of Tables

**extracted: All
stable isotopic nuclei — **1H1
to 83Bi209 as tabled in the HOP source: HANDBOOK OF PHYSICS, E. U.
Condon, McGraw-Hill 1967, Table 2.1 MASS TABLE ¦ s9–65—9–86:

CHECKED CONCORDANT [WITH ONLY SMALL DIFFERENCES] in the
later NIST/Codata and Berkeley National Laboratory chart atomic nuclei tables

Table4 NuclearSize2023.ods col AS and AT

**The TNED
related physics results suggest that it is the orange dotted graph ( rZ)²/r that
describes the true physical nature behind the **Angeli2004 collected nuclear
(spherically related, liquid drop model)

** **

** **

**The simple ***toroid nuclear*** TNED related mathematically explaining concept ( rZ)²/r also
apparently is impossible to render a representation at all inside the present
scientific **

** The reason
behind the deviating left blue part is partly related in ****Why****. ***And so we should be capable of sorting out the rest ..*

**— What does it
say?**

**— The TNED
orange function ( rZ)²/r
is apparently a collector of the actual established Angeli2004
collected experimental nuclear **”

**— All of them,
apparently. Dodge that one, the one who can.**

*The internal explanation in »The
Hammer»*

The *r*_{0}*
*Hammer Explanation

*Strongly deviating in the
light part of the atomic nuclide chart, decreasing towards the end of the heavy
part, as the nuclei size increases*

This might be a long shot — or is a
direct hammer hit on the nail, down to the flat level, in one strike.

Newer academic preferences changes/kills older,
blocking a true understanding

*— and Nature — reason —
answers by a protective physics guard, making it impossible to hide the true
reality mathematical phycis — do disclaim anyone who can ..*

A1
UDHR10Dec1948: ”.. They are **endowed with
reason** and conscience ..”; *reason
— *as in* care: *test
DEFENCE.

Compare: the **Plain
Vector Math**.

Referring to the McGraw-Hill
HANDBOOK OF PHYSICS (HOP) scientific community standards
1960+ — the generally used approximation of the proton radius *r*_{0}
= 1.37
Fermi = 1.37 t15 M — a praradigm shift in general physics
ideas has apparently taken form (2000+) with the increasing use of extended
computer power techniques. While the HOP-source (1967) seems not at all to use
the present academic corriodor popular term ”charge radius”, the older
HOP-source uses ”nuclear size” and ”charge distribution” terms — which would be
the preferred correct scientific terminology: experimentally *measured*
observations (mainly at the time from electron scattering results — See HOP
on Hofstadter).

ILLUSTRATION — **the one and only true atomic nucleus**

Compiled central TNED concepts, 15Aug2023

What we need to know for getting the hang of the reasoning
level

— The practical physical availability in **experimentally** taking a look at the atomic nucleus,
TNED suggests:

Angeli2004 has been kind
enough to revise some of the dramatic background that does reflect on these
conceptual science community vocabulary terms, picturing the normally hidden
drama of the vastly collected data.

”taking into account corrections for Coulomb
distortion and higher moments”

— Yes. Exactly my point:

— Maybe these eminent fine upstanding mathematical
aces also have the number to the lord.

*— ”re-analyzed” was
the-breaking-the-ice word. The here only known reason behind was:*

*— »Our theories does readily
not fit — there must be something else to add to the complex,for our models to
adapt more properly with experimental results» ..*

Angeli2004p187col1m:

” At this point, some remarks on the radius data for the

proton and deuteron are appropriate. Worldwide data on

elastic (el) electron–proton scattering have been re-analyzed

taking into account corrections for Coulomb distortion

and higher moments, resulting in an rms charge

radius *R*_{p,el} = 0.895(18) fm [13]. The evaluation of high

accuracy data of the *1S*
Lamb shift (LS) in hydrogen

yielded *R _{p,LS}*
= 0.883(14) fm [14]. The weighted average

(av) of these two independent
data is *R*_{p,av} = 0.887(11)

fm.”,

” For the deuteron, the analysis of world data on electron

scattering resulted in *R*_{d,el}
= 2.130(12) fm [15]. From

the measurement of the hydrogen–deuterium isotope

shift, the difference of deuteron–proton rms charge

radii have been derived: *R*_{d}^{2}
– *R*_{p}^{2} = 3.8212(15) fm^{2} [16].

Using this as a constraint
between *R*_{p,av} and *R*_{d,el} in a

weighted least-squares adjustment procedure, we have

*R*_{p} =
0.8791(88) fm and *R*_{d} = 2.1402(91) fm as listed in

Table 1.”,

*It is not known here at all
how much quantitative impact these ”re-analyzing” expeditions have given to the
overall Angeli2004 world collected data. It is though suggested, as the proton,
neutron and deuteron nuclei have modern academic decisive importance in
calculating (from measurements) the general nuclear sizes (the modern academic
nucleon/quark model), that the ”re-analyzing” results (perhaps from around
1990+) do have had some impact — small or large.*

*— Then we also have — no
information — the possible influential nuclear size changes on voltage
acceleration (from energies 0.1GeV and up, see PAMELA), possibly
affecting the size. But experimental data on this detail is never, as noticed,
presented or even mentioned in the different available report on measuring
nuclear sizes (on the range of 1-5%).*

THE NEW COMPUTER INVENTORS TOOK THE ORIGINAL GENUINE
AND CHANGED IT TO BETTER SUIT THEIR NEW COMPUTER COSTUMES.

*And this author would be most
grateful if anyone could disclaim — relate out — that type of case history
truth from the print of this text.*

*Do correct:*

THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY HAS NO IDEA AT ALL OF THE
DIMENSIONAL PROPERTIES OF THE *nearly identical morphology* (N3m15 *as deduced*)
NEUTRON-PROTON AND THE REBELLIOUS DEVIATING DEUTERON
(N3m2 *as deduced*). NO WAY:

THE ONLY (HERE KNOWN) REASONABLE WAY TO CATCH A
GLIMPSE OF THE SPACE EXTENSION METRICS OF THE PROTON AND THE DEUTERON IS —
MECHANICS, AFFECTING THE GRAVITY CIRCLE RADIUS POSITIONAL CHANGES — BY ELECTRON
SCATTERING (*the electron mass element*) —
preferably by a spin polarized target (The Krisch group experiments).
THE 1956 HOFSTADTER RESULTS HAS ALREADY PIN-POINTED THE ESSENTIAL CHARGE
DENSITY PROPERTY OF THIS PROTON FIGURE, SAFELY DOCUMENTED IN HIS DIAGRAMS (ReHofstadter1956).
AND THERE IS NOT THE SLIGHTEST DOUBT ABOUT THAT RESULTING PICTURE.

— The Hofstadter results do
reflect the specific nuclear space extension property, however and apparently
on the limited scale of the nuclear surface charge distribution — of which
TNED-*rZ*
is not covering the entire nuclear surface (*electric displacement
in TNED*). Additional (electron scattering) would be needed to clarify (*with
no fancy creative computer modeling additions, just the raw scattering data*).

The bottom section of this attempted Hammer
Explanation:

— Modern academic ideas (2000+) of
nuclear physics has too hastily introduced additional features, more in line
with the academic idea of the content, than the actual natural physics itself.

The ”Worldwide data” revisions —
apparently — has added details that has obscured the true background —
apparently and namely all in respect to the (classic) proton radius. Disclaim.
Here in TNED
it is deduced from the Planck constant Neutron ring angular momentum h=
mN×c0×rN with the help of (The TNED further developed Niels Bohr model)
basically deduced parameters in the simple Hydrogen Spectrum (the energy
circle). See linked details in ProtonRADIUS
deduced:

The Angeli2004
collected R(fm) nuclear ”charge radius” data in 1.00 Fermi units has apparently
a most prominent connection to the TNED (rZ)²/r scale r0 preference in 1.37
Fermi units:

*r _{0}* = (

*r*_{0} = (*m*** _{e}**/

*r*_{0} = **1.366216806510**
t15 M ≈ **1.37 Fermi** ; same values as in the NEUTRON SQUARE — here derived from
Planck constant h

*Bottom line:*

The *r*_{0}
preference was (is) — hidden *TheHammerExplanation*
— incorporated in the experiments: **cannot
be excluded**. Disclaim. *We have to attack the arguments, to expose their
inner strength — or command the statements to back off. There is no other way.*

*Further additional
clarifications and explanations may be needed — if at all*.

— It would also be preferably
interesting to find any argument explaining that the above suggested really has
no substance (*the history of science knows a few examples ..*). None yet
found. Search continues.

ComparingFrame ¦
ProtonRADIUS
¦ TheHammerExplanation

**IllustratedExplanation**
¦ ComparingFrame ¦ ProtonRADIUS ¦ TheHammerExplanation ¦ CREDIT: ReHofstadter1956 — all categories, also in a HOP-quote: ”the best”.

THE WHOLE PICTURE ¦ **plusCUBEgraph**

All TNED data orange
in UniverseHistory on nuclear size presentations are uniformly given in the
classic (Hopr0)
HOP r0 preference r0 = 1.37 Fermi, also deduced here in The
PROTON radius.

**The Angeli2004
atomic nuclear **”charge”** radii values
are given from the source in 1.00 Fermi units, as quoted below from the source
— and so directly plotted with no change in scaling value directly here **blue**
on **a
corresponding TNED nuclear fraction relation** TNED r0 = 1.37
Fermi **rZ ÷
r ×
rZ** vertical axis unit scale ** —— »as IF so».

**Angeli2004**
p194, Explanation of Tables.

The data specifications in the additional set
of contributors
KAPLAN 1955/1962, HOP 1967, HERRMANN 1997, OSAWA 2001,
COVELLO 2002 and SUZUKI 2003

— see original description Jul2008 NUCLEAR
RADII PART 2 on these in KAPLAN DATA , all these are given from the
sources in [fm] 1.00 Fermi units —

have been transferred to the uniform TNED
nuclear size data r0 = 1.37 Fermi unit as Xfermi/r0Fermi = vertical position on
the horizontally specified isotope.

TWP: Whole

———————————————

NuclearStructure ¦ TheNEUTRON ¦ ProtonRADIUS ¦ N3m20Results ¦ **NoStatistics** ¦ TheNeutronSquare ¦ DEDUCTION ¦ Derivation ¦ TheHammerExplanation

— ..
finally everything made sense ..

** The reason
behind the deviating left blue part is partly related in ****Why****. ***And so we should be capable of sorting out the rest ..
too ..*

ONLY FROM THE ABOVE RESULTS — Kaplan, Osawa,
Tomaselli and Suzuki contra the blue dotted Angeli collected higher spouses —
the results vary significantly and apparently depending on experimental method
— and the way in which a final collection of the resulting data is composed. As
far as these results are naturally relevant, the orange curvature upstart has
some extra credit from the three named contributors.

**Nuclear radius,
surface nuclear charge extension, experimentally collected data 1955**+

THE WHOLE PICTURE

*Nuclear radius, surface
nuclear charge extension, experimentally nuclear size collected data 1955+*

CHRONOLOGICALLY COLLECTED AND COMPILED NUCLEAR SIZE DATA
FROM KAPLAN 1955/1962, HOP 1967, HERRMANN 1997, OSAWA 2001,
COVELLO 2002, SUZUKI 2003, ANGELI 2004

THE ORANGE COLLECTOR OF THE BLUE ANGELI 2004 TABLED STABLE
ISOTOPIC NUCLEI DATA IS AN EXCLUSIVE TNED PHYSICS DEDUCTION, see Details
in DEDUCTION and Derivation.

It should — again for clarity — be
noted that the Angeli2004 data table values in the Angeli
2004 Table 1 are given in R(fm) 1.00 Fermi units. All other
data values on nuclear size diagrams here in UniverseHistory are uniformly with
no exception given in r0 = 1.37 Fermi units, either directly
in the UH presentations or so transferred Xfermi/r0Fermi=VerticalScalePosition
from specified sources :

1 Fermi = 1 t15 M = 10^{–15} M
(T ¦ t in UH for 10±), according to the TNED (Hydrogen Spectrum, Planck
constant) deduced (ProtonRadius ¦ Nuclear Radii
CHANGE —— through the Electron
Casting)

*r _{0}* = (

*r*_{0} = (*m*** _{e}**/

*r*_{0} = **1.366216806510**
t15 M ≈ **1.37 Fermi** ; same values as in the NEUTRON SQUARE — here derived from Planck
constant h = 6.62559 t34 JS

The orange TNED (rZ)²/r
graph apparently collects the
Angeli2004 1 Fermi data. But: Not as actually physical properties of the atomic
nucleus. But as generally experimentally collected data on these properties:
The explaining real rZ (DeducingTHErZ — on a bare TNED credit from the Hofstadter1956
results) and r (ToroRadius)
nuclear properties cannot (as we know — yet) directly be measured
experimentally. The complex apparently exposes a fundamental revelation in
atomic and nuclear physics, unless misunderstood.

That was apparently also — during the
TNED history developments (TNEDbegin1993)
— the reason why none of this »atomic nuclear size crap» made any sense — until
recently (14Aug2023) the (rZ)²/r connection was discovered through the Angeli2004
collected data — as suggested from the recently appearing results in revisiting
the Hofstadter1956 electron scattering experimental results (see ReHofstadter1956).
It was all suddenly connected — if at all.

plusCUBEgraph: TWP
¦ NuclearCurves

NOW WE CAN SEE MORE CLEARLY WHY THE CUBE GRAPH REALLY HAS A CENTRAL ROLE IN ATOMIC NUCLEAR
PHYSICS: »almost TNED all the way»

WHOLE PICTURE PLUS CUBE GRAPH

— *what the whole approximated
atomic nuclear size adventure departed from* — *r*_{0} = 1.37
Fermi see TNED ProtonRADIUSdeduced

THE
ATOMIC NUCLEUS is GRAVITATION — but **gravitation**, the atomic nucleus (h = mcr = c
× n[mr/n =(F/a)r/n = Fr/an =
E/an], n→∞),
**is not a particle**. No way:

Summing
electric charge ±e = 0. Summing spin ±s = 0. Mass is converted to heat and
light Planck energy E = hf = mcr/t = mc²
through COEI
conservation of energy by induction, related physics says.

Light
has no mass. Light exposes no centrifugal property. Light is massless. Light is
not gravitation.

AND AS WE (now, finally) can see: The
simple CUBEgraph — the white added above to the WholePicture
— holds »a lot of approximated» atomic nuclear (experimental) data. So it was
experimentally justified, all from the start.

plusCUBEgraph ¦ WholePicture ¦ TWP

EquationToSolve: TWP

*Equation to solve — data
specifications — Illustrated Explanation
*

TNED EXPLAINS Angeli2004
collected EXPERIMENTAL NUCLEAR PHYSICS RESULTS:

**Rather than an
explanation, this is what the Angeli2004/TNED congruence
shows:**

*r _{0}* = (

*r*_{0} = (*m*** _{e}**/

*r*_{0} = **1.366216806510**
t15 M ≈ **1.37 Fermi** ; same values as in the NEUTRON SQUARE — here derived from
Planck constant h = 6.62559 t34 JS

**The specified R(fm)Angeli2004
1.00 Fermi unit adapts to the TNED percentage congruity on the proton 1.37
Fermi unit quantity, as so proven by the general flat trend percentage correspondence:**

**We have
(exactly) the same comparing situation here between the Angeli2004
collected experimentally results and TNED results (***DeducingTHErZ***), as in the Q/V **

**— And as in the
other similar comparisons TNED/MAC ( mass defects theory,
Hofstadter scattering results), it is the first
part of the nuclear charge that exposes the largest deviations:**

Modern Academy Theory? No way. No mother god
loving way.

** **

**In modern
corridors ***Quotes*** one uses a spherical (liquid drop) model for the atomic nucleus. The
difference to TNED in the first part of the nuclear charge ( mass
defects) is outragingly huge, and (**

** **

Table4 NuclearSize2023.ods col AS and AT

THE Angeli2004 WORLD COLLECTED EXPERIMENTAL
RESULTS APPARENTLY VERIFIES THE TNED DEDUCED NUCLEAR
STRUCTURAL MORPHOLOGY

— But this author welcomes any — orderly — suggested
argumentation which promptly advises this presentation to the lower regions of
recycling.

— WHY ARE YOU SO PERSISTENTLY INSISTING ON A ”DISCLAIM”?
What’sUp?

— **The TNED history**: QUESTIONING a statement can only
result in two possible outcomes: 1. the statement is killed, because its inner
Arguing Power is too weak. Or 2., the
more we attack a TRUE suggested inner argumentative STRUCTURE, the more POWER
it exposes on its inner NATURE — **if there is one**, at all. Compare **HumanRight** recognition basics: DEFENSE: always
sharp. True reason — certainty — can only grow stronger. Never weaker. That’s
why. And so, sometimes we are wrong and make mistakes. But if persistent enough
to QUESTION our own conclusion, it MIGHT show an opening otherwise hidden.
Shorter: we get credit for trying.

1.00 Fermi in experimental atomic
nuclear physics

The Angeli2004 vastly collected
isotopic nuclear R[fm] size data table

corresponds to r0 =1.37 Fermi real
nuclear physics coordinates (ComparingFrame):

*r _{0}* = (

*r*_{0} = (*m*** _{e}**/

*r*_{0} = **1.366216806510**
t15 M ≈ **1.37 Fermi** ; same values as in the NEUTRON SQUARE — here derived from
Planck constant h = 6.62559 t34 JS

The general experimental (computer
calculated, modern nuclear theory) deviations in the first lighter part of the
nuclear chart, is so explained in general by TNED:

THIS TEXT AND ILLUSTRATION IS ALSO USED IN THE HAMMER EXPLANATION FOR THE CONTEXT

Modern Academy Theory? No way. No mother god
loving way.

** **

**In modern
corridors one uses (***»unconditionally», Quotes***) a spherical
(liquid drop) model for the atomic nucleus. The difference to TNED in the first
part of the nuclear charge ( mass defects)
is outragingly huge, and (**

— The TNED deduced nuclear
surface charge extension rZ

with the TNED deduced toroid gravity
circle radius r

(ToroRadius ¦ DEDUCTION
1993 ¦ 2023, Derivation)

apparently is a collector

on the simple TNED real toroid
morphological relation (rZ)²/r,

as attested by the

(AngeliTNED
orange bulk)

nuclide data collected (ComparingFrame)
in the Angeli2004 table

— unless there have appeared some
serious and severely deep misapprehending misunderstandings in this modern
academic rebellious presentation:

MODERN ACADEMIC NUCLEAR THEORY IN A MORE CLOSE
STUDY

NoStatistics ¦ Synthesis ¦ DifferenceGraphs

THE RESULT CONFIRMS THE BASIC OBSERVATION [ TheNEUTRON
— Planck constant h=mcr]. THERE ARE NO INSIDE SPINNING PARTICLES — NUCLEONS —
INSIDE THE ATOMIC NUCLEUS. No way. But if someone has proof meaning and
suggesting otherwise, it would indeed be interesting to see those arguments on
the table — **on a related basis together with
experimentally proving arguments**. Because, as above, such does not exist on the modern
academic table, apparently. The only way to still claim such, at the present,
is to frankly deny the available proofs.

Without further correlations, the TNED
deduced NeutronSquare atomic masses — orange —
connect almost identically to the experimentally measured (HOP 1967,
LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL LABORATORY 2003
and NIST/CODATA
2005). While the GRAY established scientific (Weizsäcker)
spouse differ party heavily and outrageously unacceptable, »TNED takes them
all». Basic reason: Modern corridors uses (mD) NUCLEAR mass defects while TNED
uses ATOMIC MASS defects (elliptic
equations): the whole atom — beginning from Planck constant h
= mcr, TheNEUTRON. And there is — guaranteed:
searched for, none yet found — no communicating or transferring mathematics
between these: They constitute two completely different realms, with completely
different basic properties and preferences — as so also seen.

The main reason (why academic ideas
don’t fit) is, though, as related: gravitation: gravitation’s fundamental form,
(PlanckRING2)
the atomic nucleus (from Planck constant h = mcr: TheNeutron):

**gravitation is not a particle**

THE TNED ATOMIC NUCLEUS HAS NO
CONSTITUENT PARTICLES. No way.

Proof: In order for MASS to disintegrate
(m→γ) completely into Planck energy E = hf = mcr/t = mc² heat and
light (related physics COEI: conservation of energy by induction)
MASS is not allowed to have finite particle constituents — in no fundamental
way at all (related physics’ seventh and last
principle, PASTOM,
the principle/principal structure of mass):

**light is not
mass** but its wave matter nature is preferentially
mathematically described as »space travelling hf-quanta»

**light does not
connect kinetics**
Michelon and
Morley experiments 1881+
¦ related: Max Planck photoelectric effect

**light develops
not centrifugal properties**

The Solar Eclipse Expeditions 1919+

These are all basics in ”natural
philosophy”. But the modern academic idea (1800+) wasted them all, instead
inventing a New Academic Preference (»the death of truth — The Birth of Consenting
Academic Intelligence: light has mass» [ Max Planck was right ¦ TheVIC
]). And so, here we are, today — saved by the instrumental development of
precision measurements on physical phenomena. The real steel stuff.

IllustratedExplanation: EquationToSolve ¦ **The Whole Picture**

ILLUSTRATED EXPLANATION

TO BE DISCLAIMED ON ANY
UniversalHistory READERS CREDIT — ON ANY *possible* FOUND *related*
ARGUMENT:

BLUE —
**Angeli2004**
world collected isotopic nuclear radii R[fm] data in 1.00 Fermi units
vertical scale — apparently and almost precisely touching and ending on [
83Bi209 ]

** The reason
behind the deviating left blue part is partly related in ****Why****. ***And so we should be capable of sorting out the rest ..*

Ornge — TNED *r*_{Z}^{2}/*r*
in 1.37 Fermi units vertical scale.

**Disclaim, anyone who can: TNED
describes the true, perfectly relatable nature of the atomic nuclear
morphological physics. Its experimental — instrumental — counterpart must use
macro cosmical preferences — mass enveloped in volume ***liquid drop models*** — which has no atomic nuclear corresponding existence ***and so considerable —
inevitable — differences are developed between theory and practice***. However — ***provided*** — concordant measuring
results ***over
some concordant used parametric preferences* **will (***eventually***) present a final FRACTION form, reflecting the actual real steel ( force,
gravitational) morphology. As it so seems in this
coincidence between the Angeli2004 collected data presented in the Angeli2004
tables in 1.00 Fermi units, versus the still (Aug2023) persistently uniformly TNED
used 1.37 Fermi units (HOPr0) on the nuclear size
presentations (Deducing the ProtonRadius
with Planck constant, the masses of the neutron and the electron), a
coherent end picture has landed (AngeliTNED)
using the TNED relation (rZ)²/r.**

**— See also the rest of the
1993+ TNED history collected data on the subject of nuclear radius in the WholePicture.**

*r*_{0} = 1.37 Fermi *rounded, see ProtonRadius
deduced* ¦ 1Fermi = 1 t15 M

**Ψ**(*psi*)
= 2*b*(π*a*)^{2}

*r* = ½*r*_{0}√*A* ToroRADIUS
¦ *A*>1

*rZ* =
[1/*r*^{3} + 3**Ψ***kA/Ze*]^{–1/3}/*r*_{0}

(*A*>1)**Ψ** = **0.5947063465**
= 2*b*(π*a*)^{2} = (π/4)^{2}(1 – 7/2 +
2√3)

3**Ψ***k*
= **0.0033095408 T25**
¦ *A*>1

*r*Z = [1/*r*^{3} + **0.0033095408
**T25* A/Ze*]^{–1/3}/*r*_{0}

(*A*=1)**Ψ** = **0.0089007893**
= 2*b*(π*a*)^{2}

3**Ψ***k*
= **0.0000495329 T25**
¦ *A*=1

*r*Z = [1/*r*_{0}^{3}
+ **0.0000495329 **T25* *1/*e*]^{–1/3}/*r*_{0}

=
**0.9999973718**

Table3 K1 NuclearSize2023.ods

HoldingPoints: IllustratedExplanation

*Holding points:*

♦ Experimental — instrumental — measures on

gravitation’s fundamental form, the
atomic nucleus

(beginning from Planck constant h=mcr, The
Neutron as deduced in TNED)

•
**has by no means any macro cosmic metric — matter: **mass volume density**
— resemblance,**

no way, in no physical sense at all,

•
**because gravitation — **the atomic nucleus —** is not a
particle**. No
mother god loving way.

GRAVITATION CANNOT BE EXPLAINED THROUGH MATTER PHYSICS,
particles — and as far as we know,

**mass physics — **TNED —** stands
unrepresented in modern quarters, guaranteed**, too:

♦ The atomic nucleus has in no way, by no means, in no rational,
logic or other reasonable here known way,

•
**no inside existing finite particle objects**;

♦ For MASS to disintegrate (m→γ) completely into Planck
energy E = hf = mcr/t = mc² heat and light, MASS — **gravitation**
— is not allowed to have finite particle constituents — in no fundamental way
at all:

♦ **light **Planck heat and light energy E = mc²**
is not — in no physical way — gravitation**.

**light is not
mass** but its wave matter nature is preferentially
mathematically described as »space traveling hf-quanta»

**light does not
connect kinetics**
Michelson and
Morley experiments 1881+
¦ related: Max Planck photoelectric effect

**light develops
not centrifugal properties**

The Solar Eclipse Expeditions 1919+

*Related physics’ two
fundamental convergence-divergence
principles:*

**Gravitation** works *equal* to all matter, cannot be shielded
from: *hence* **independent of time**.

**LIGHT** works *different* for all matter, *can* be SHIELDED
from, *and hence*: **time dependent**.

• **light
is not gravitation = mass**: LIGHT
[ Max Planck was right, Albert Einstein was wrong
]

IS MASSLESS = GRAVITATION-LESS — completely centrifugally
DEAD.

• **light
= no kinetics**. No
way. Give us the argument against — and we will surrender immediately.
Absolutely.

*♦ c and v are not additive in physics*. Any such claim or idea, leads to
fundamental misconceptions — culture crash.

By DRIFT. Not plan

»THE PARASITIC CONGRESS: — We need BaldCuts to Survive».
Society commits suicide — by DRIFT. Not plan.

Ignorance rules the world — the conditions were better year 1311. Almost true. Our hope: instrumentation.

♦ Attempting to define the atomic nucleus from such a standpoint,
causes, promotes, develops and gains credit on misapprehending interpretations
of the exceptionally advanced instrumental experimental results. It can only
lead the student into a fatal illusory idea of the physical nature of the
cosmic reality he has been born into.

Apart from magnetic interaction —
which inevitably demands polarized objects (*The Krisch group results
1979/1987*) — any chance of spotting the very sharp
contour of the TNED deduced atomic nucleus: don’t even
think about it. No way.

— But it would be interesting IF some genius could break that stated ice by inventing a method. Absolutely.

See also in

SCATTERING EXPERIMENTS IN GENERAL (SEIG).

EquationToSolve
¦ WholePicture
¦ HoldingPoints ¦ ComparingFrame ¦ ProtonRADIUS ¦ TheHammerExplanation

Up till this present writing time
(23Jul2023) no TNED related article in UH has treated
(or mentioned, in explicit) the deduced (DEDUCTION)
toroid aggregature on other than a constant
(KG/M²) mass/surface pressure (proton)mass/(protonToroidRing)Area = **constant**
(SurfaceMassPressure).
And:

— With nuclear size growing along with
growing mass number, the mass/TopToroidSpinArea relation follows the form factor
derivation (DERIVATION) of the deuteron nucleus :

— practically a constant straight line
through the entire nuclear chart system.

— With a constant relationship between
toroid surface and spherical surface (NuclearToroidRelations)
the same principle constant proportionality also holds with the toroid gravity
circle radius taken as a spherical ditto.

See also further on the TNED nuclear KG/M² issue in TNEDNucSizeImpact:
what possible (TNED) factors can influence nuclear size changes.

*Exemplifying the two foremost
nuclei: proton and deuteron*

PRESENT NUCLEAR SIZE CONCEPTS THROUGH A REGULAR TNED
ORIENTATION

*Generally: The Wikipedia presented
values*

N3m20¦15

*The TNED deduced nuclear
proportion values*

With a given N=3 (HOW)
the Deuteron (and all the heavier atomic nuclei) toroid morphology is deduced (DEDUCTION)
from a Derivation of summing the toroid
surfaces (Planck ring fractal structure)
between two N=3 A=1 toroid aggregates — for which form factors we at first have
absolutely no idea. These come later through an iteration based on the (»Deuteron
Hidden Secret») angular momentum result from the two
exothermally (inside each other Potential barrier)
fused A=1 toroid aggregates; The nuclear surface structure SUCKS on
short range, repels on larger.

———————————————

m15 ¦ THE PROTON RADIUS
r = 1.37 Fermi FROM PLANCK
CONSTANT ¦ Potential barrier

The above (TNED deduced)
inflicted Wikipedia modern academy present values on the proton and deuteron
nuclei, very well illustrates our general dilemma in physics (Jul2023):

— In the TNED nuclear size complex,
modern academy is »pretty much outclassed»:

**IF modern
corridors have arguments against that claimed TNED status, it would be very
interesting to share the precision for direct comparison**.

— The present academic presented values
apparently have no other value or meaning than as **an exposed
method of measurement** (nothing
is wrong with the experiments as such, no way) that — guaranteed — has
little (or none) connection to the practical physical reality — **according
to the TNED statements**.

Shorter:

— TNED nuclear size has no connection
to **nuclear charge**
(Z). No way.

While the present academic idea
entirely builds upon such a consented dependence — spinning np-nucleons inside
the nucleus determines nuclear size — TNED physics has nothing of the kind:

gravitation’s fundamental form — **the
atomic nucleus** from Planck constant h=mcr The
Neutron — has no finite inner constituents:

**gravitation is
not a particle**.

No way (HoldingPoints).

Articles: NuclearSize

The TNED physics more
substantial arguments in this presentation:

———————————————

TheNEUTRON — short history, basic concepts ¦

NUCLEARradius ¦ProtonRADIUS — deducing the neutron and proton and other
nuclear radii ¦

ComparingFrame — The
Hammer Explanation: TNED has found its final way .. ¦

N3m20results —
TNED experimental comparison with the Krisch group results May1979 and
Aug1987 ¦

NuclearStructure — ±e
Planck ring fractal electric displacements explain the physics of nuclear
charge structure ¦

NuclearSize — PRESENT NUCLEAR SIZE
CONCEPTS ¦

NoStatistics — COMPARING
ON RELATED PHYSICS — Modern Ideas and TNED ¦

ConfirmingThe71 —
confirming the 71% r0 deuteron radius ¦

ITNewN3m15 — INVESTIGATING THE NEW N3m15 ORDER, the
nuclear radius concept ¦

NoteLightMass — The
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN USING LIGHT TECHNIQUES AND MASS SCATTERING EXPERIMENTS ¦

TNEDNucSizeImpact — 5 possible ways for atomic nuclei to exhibit
metric changes¦

DEDUCTION — TNED N3m15 and N3m2 ¦

ReHofstadter1956 —
REVISITING THE 1950+ HOFSTADTER EXPERIMENTS ¦

TenMap — The nuclear mass principle ¦

DeducingTHErZ — The
nuclear mass principle ¦

TheELECTRONmassELEMENT — The Tau Ring ¦

NuclearBasics —
RELATED PHYSICS AND MATHEMATICS ON ELEMENTARY NUCLEAR PHYSICS ¦

TEPRIS — THE FRACTAL TNED PLANCK RING STRUCTURE ¦

TNEDnuclearChargeBasics2 — THE NUCLEAR CHARGE
RADIUS Z IN TNED ¦

TheCorruptedNucleus — ON THE QUEST OF A
CORRUPTED NUCLEAR EXTENSION ¦

PAMELA — PARTICLE MASS ELECTRIC
ACCELERATION ¦

Today (Jul2023) the Wikipedia and other
science sources have practical no mentioning of the classic instrumentation
era’s ”nuclear radius”, or even ”nuclear size.

**As evident as
can be illustrated, related physics and mathematics TNED says, the reason
and explanation for this shift **roughly before¦2000¦after**
in modern scientific quarters is also illustratable. See WikipediaChargeRadius.**

NOTE the established values in ”charge
radius”: these are NOT in any way related to TNED.

As we already may have noticed (Quotes),
the modern academic way is to »SPHERIZIE» all nuclear morphological details (the Quark theory, the liquid spherical drop model),
and to which TNED has no connection at all (except
as a pimitive, not realistic, model). However, the values as such can be
(fairly) related to a type ”the visual sphere’s size” (the 3D xyz all possible spins of the top spinning toroid aggregate —
depending on energy ..), and so be given a relative place in the TNED
view.

**From the TNED precise
morphological view, we can just imagine the different possible corresponding
experimental quantities emanating from the different experimental methods in
attacking the atomic nucleus for extracting its property data — on a set of
experimentalists that imagines the atomic nucleus as a sphere, consisting of
inner spinning smaller spheres: The modern academic idea of nucleons and quarks.
Depending on attacking energy, exotic species will certainly show up. Compare
the Krisch group results 1979¦1987.**

—
Will somebody please cut the oxygen from this author, so inspired to send
established ideas even beyond a possible horizon of the stoneage, please?

So:

NOW we no longer have to be confused on the new (2020+) Wikipedia
specifications of type »the proton radius is 0.84 Fermi» — implied but not
said:

**CHARGE radius —
a new modern ****measuring method concept****
pet supporting the aid of the remaining modern vector algebra crews to survive.**

— Therapy. Just to keep them occupied.

— If they catch you, they will kill
you, you know that?

— Yes. I will do my best to die kindly.

What we know, the foremost reason
why modern academy has such crunch for insisting on relating (Z) nuclear charge
WITH nuclear radius is, of course, the modern academic idea that ’atomic nuclei consists of freely
internal spinning existing protons and neutrons’, *Quotes*:
’round charged balls’. Wikipedia on Atomic nucleus (22Aug2023): ” The **atomic nucleus** .. consisting of protons
and neutrons ..”.

Consequently the general popular
scientific imperative of forcing ideas of ”nuclear size” with the property of
”nuclear charge”; Nuclear size in modern corridors is (*by drift, not plan*)
a mathematical exercise on a number of inside (*»protonically quark» spinning
devices*) spinning neutrons and protons, delimiting the outer edge of an
atomic nucleus. That is the general scientific encyclopedic texbook’s also
illustrated picture during the bulk 1900s, still alive today (Aug2023): **the
modern academic idea of the nature of gravitation**:

(By DRIFT. Not plan. For, given the provisions with modern academy 1800+ science inventing history — compare TheLIST — instead of deducing the details: What else is there to chose on? The academy has to continue to step forward, one step at a time, if it not is to step back, and hence inventing still new ways to proceed. And so, here we are ..).

Force: ARTICLES

—
Yes. And if this author would, please, stop mocking the lower regions of the
academic populations and instead be so kind as to deliver any a smallest
suggestion for an alternative explanation, what would that be, please, sir,
mam?

—
Yes (plusCubeGrapgh), thank you, you are
very kind:

THE ATOMIC NUCLEUS **is** GRAVITATION. Yes. But **gravitation**, the atomic nucleus (*h
= mcr = c × n*[*mr/n* = (F/*a*)*r/n* = F*r/an* = E/*an*], *n*→∞), **is not a
particle**. No
way:

Summing electric charge ±e = 0. Summing spin ±s = 0. Mass is
converted to heat and light Planck energy E = hf = mcr/t = mc² through COEI conservation of energy by
induction, related physics says.

**Light has no
mass**. Light exposes no centrifugal property.
Light is massless. Light is not gravitation: **gravitation is
not a particle**. No
mother god loving way. Say again.

— For the quantity independent ∞, see more related in PhysicsFirst, unless already familiar.

— IT IS AS IF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY 1900+ DID STICk THE
SPOON IN THE SOUP, BUT THEN FOUND IT TO PROBLEMATIC TO RAISE THE SPOON TO THE
MOUTH. STILL STUCK.

———————————————

EverythingIncluded ¦ BackGround ¦
HoldingPoints
¦
plusCubeGrapgh
¦
TheNuclearMASSprinciple ¦
ActualArgument
¦
GravityForce

In TNED no such dependence
exists: the atomic nucleus (*NuclearStructure*)
is based on (fractal) *±e* structure (»np-structure»).

The structure *its physical organization by
principle* is governed *forced to be founded* by the one and only
energy criteria: mass destruction (*m*→γ) — star physics — for
delivering massless heat and light: *mass — gravitation — has no, cannot
have, finite constituents*. See related basic here from TheNeutron:
Planck constant *h=mcr*.

No finite existent particles. Up
to 20Ca40 mass number *A=*40 all
stable nuclei have (*with small differences*) a general same np-proportion
(*A*=2Z=*p+n; almost half of each for all stable nuclei; 0, 1, 2, 3, or
4 more neutron structural quanta max up to 20Ca40*).

Further up and into the heavier
nuclide chart (*A*>60) this »*almost equal n:s and p:s*» symmetry
is broken.

— We would (in TNED), without further clarifications, expect some markedly (definite, structural) preferential change in the interpretations between modern academic (experimental) and related (»TNED explaining») physics.

— However as the atoms and their
nuclei gets heavier with increasing nuclear charge (Z) »the odds *somehow*
even out». What we see is instead a smoothing end in the chart on the fraction
Z/*NeutronExcess* = 1/(*A*/Z – 2):

NeutronExcess: — n-structure excess ¦ ARTICLES

— »The first 16 nuclides in row» are

3**Li**7 ¦ 4**Be**9 ¦ 5**B**11 ¦ 6**C**13 ¦ 7**N**15 ¦ 8**O**17 ¦ 9**F**19 ¦ 10**Ne**21 ¦ 11**Na**23 ¦ 12**Mg**25 ¦ 13**Al**27 ¦ 14**Si**29 ¦ 15**P**31 ¦ 16**S**33 ¦ 17**Cl**35 ¦ 19**K**39 ¦

— It is all about structure [ . music .. symphony .. tones .. ].

**Neutron excess
N(+) as A–2Z with growing
nuclear charge (Z), then related to Z as — A denotes mass number —**

*In TNED A means
the atom’s number of original Neutrons in a **Dmax** (maximum tight
lying neutrons) making up the final atom from spointaneous exothermal fusions
(fusion rings)*

**Z/N(+) = Z/( A–2Z) = 1/(A/Z – 2) is the vertical scale
in the diagram. It is apparently (very) irregular in the first part of the
chart — and then smoothing out towards the end (83Bi209), all stable isotopes.
The end picture suggests that »the TNED disturbing effect» is
automatically dampened out — when we thought it would be the other way around.**

**— The end
picture confirms this behavior on the (***ComparingFrame***) TNED (orange)
comparing ( rZ)²/r
status with the extensively collected Angeli2004
data on nuclear ”charge radius”: »TNED collects experimental results».**

**Instead of
deviating, the collected (BLUE, modern corridors) experimental data converges
smoothly towards the TNED calculated (ORANGE) chart end. See further details
from ***ComparingFrame***.**

Dmax: NeutronExcess ¦ K-cellHeatPhysics

Only natural constants —

neutron mass mN, Planck constant h, light’s
divergence/propagation c0 in free space

Related physics and mathematics ¦ HOW THE K CELL DEVELOPS

General description

— K-cell expansion

———————————————

Dmax ¦ KcellEXPANSION ¦
TheTEXPLAN ¦ CosmicINTRO ¦ CosmoA ¦
The
c0 Body

THE TNED DEDUCED
PULSATING (*half period *336Gy) *m*K = 4.14 T53 KG UNIVERSE in the general
cosmic *c*_{0}-body directly after DETONATION from a preceding
contraction, exposes only tightly *DensityMax* (*Dmax*) 1.82 T17
KG/M² lying neutron masses.

**Depending on
formations in the contractive phase, the regaining of the primary neutron state
with growing gravitation offers different structural combinations of the Dmax
tight lying neutrons. After detonation (***same gravitational contracted energy recoils
on same detonating power, neutrons added covering mass losses from the
surrounding c0-body during the contraction***) the expanding
masses senses less gravitation, and the neutron decay begins, starting the
spontanous exothermal fusions from the center of each specific celestial
original Dmax J-body. All related physics and mathematics.**

— Light’s gravitational
dependeny governs the entire complex, where the c0-body
consists of the endless supply of dormant (*c*=0) neutrons. See The
c0 Body.

———————————————

The
Solar Systems in The Milky Way — Swedish edition Oct2018 ¦ AllKeplerMath ¦ TheREVELATION

*Related physics and
mathematics*

The K-cell detonation throws out
the central *m*K mass by (recoil wave functions) dividing it into smaller
portions (*galactic, planetary and solar systems and huge amounts of
»debris»: sand*). As the process is governed by *light’s gravitational dependency* —
the neutron decaying process — the local mass distributions — gravitation —
determines when, how and to what extent a central primary celestial (J-body)
will develop its exothermal fusions from the already close lying loaded
nuclides. See also (*application*) in CWON *from* CAP.

BackGround: **Dmax**

*Background *

*— related physics and
mathematics:*

As already stated

**Nuclear basic
physics, the atomic universe **

(*h = mcr =
c × n*[*mr/n* = (F/*a*)*r/n* = F*r/an* = E/*an*], *n*→∞) in *plusCubeGraph*,

*h = ***6.62559
t34** JS = J(*fundamental universal angular momentum*) = *h = m*_{N}*c*_{0}*r*_{N}*
= c*_{0} × *n*[*mr/n *= (F/*a*)*r/n* = *Fr/an* = E/*an*,
*n→∞*]
in *GravityForce*,

and reminded

**Gravitational
energy equivalents**

E = G*m*^{2}/*r*
= G(*n*→∞)*m*^{2}/*r*(*n*→∞) ¦ the
cosmic MATHEMATICALLY EXPRESSED c0-body: endless supply provides
a constant [Kcell] pulsational work in *CosmoA*,

Available Gravitational Energy: G(*n*→∞)*m*_{2}^{2}/*r*(*n*→∞): SUPPLY(*m*→∞) – HEAT(*m*→γ) = Kcell **the cosmic central **pulsating K-cell : mathematics’ solution

**the atomic
nuclear structure**

the principle structure of mass for mass to be disintegrated
to Planck energy E = hf = mcr/t = mc², = *c*_{0} × *n*[*mr/n
*= (F/*a*)*r/n*
= F*r/an* = E/*tan*, *n→∞*]),
1/*t=f* in *Pastom*,

*m = m*(*n*→∞)^{–1}(*n*→∞)
= *m* in *TheNeutron*,

**Euler’sEqivalents**

in *EulerEquivalents*,
(*also not recognized in modern quarters*), and

Electric constant ¦
Gravitational
constant ¦ TheGtest ¦
AllKeplerMath —— nU = neutron mass in
Dalton units [u=1.66033 t27 KG] U[neutron] = 1.0086652

*and others*

*mathematics* already
contain all the necessary tools for stating, proving, arguing, exemplifying,
and vindicating a basic cosmic 100% logically solid explanation

— *whether such a cosmic reality exists or not —
because mathematics, related, is our only tool to state proofs — along with
instrumental experimental physical observations*.

**gravitation,
electricity — light, heat, magnetism: life**. HumanRight **recognition**.

In modern corridors (1800+),
these primary conditions cannot *even* be theoretically imagined: *completely
and fundamentally and totally down to the bottomest bottom Bottom level: ***ignored**. *Denied from square one*.
Do correct if wrong.

The reason why is (was — no other
alternative): THE idea of a ’*creation*’ — and its only (by drift, not
plan) associated collaborator:

— »The Planck Constant atoms must have been created, along with the Pythagorean Theorem and others». These cannot be destroyed, but can be forgotten, denied, and then rediscovered, endlessly.

— the foremost consequential *cosmically
associated* invented (»*mass from nothing*») idea of: ”unlimited
density”.

In TNED ”unlimited density” *is
represented by (PlankRING2)
the Planck constant TNED deduced hollow ring angular momentum fractal endlessly
thin Shell: the TNED related atomic nucleus is not characterized by mass volume
density, but by mass surface density: unlimited fractal structure can only do
that: m = n × m/n, n associates the quantity independent, n→∞*.

— In modern corridors ”unlimited
density” has instead a consented meaning of *an invented* a macro
cosmically dimensional property. Related physics and mathematics has no such
nature.

The modern academic ”*singularity*” principle —
everything came from an unlimited dense Exploding POINT. Very interesting
stuff. MustBuyBook.

— THE CONDITIONS WERE BETTER YEAR 1311. Disclaim. Say again:
**gravitation **— the atomic nucleus — is already standing on a zero: the
atomic nucleus — gravitation, beginning from the neutron:
h=mcr — **cannot be**
»**compressed**» — **gravitation is not a particle**. See THE INCOMPRESSIBILITY OF THE ATOMIC NUCLEUS,
unless already familiar.

— See also Isaac Newton on »The Transport Syndrome» — Newton
»formulates» An Incapability of understanding the [DYNAMICS in the] concept of
gravitation — Blavatsky 1888 cites Newton.

Related physics:

— gravitation is **time independent** [HoldingPoints]
— equal to all matter, cannot be shielded from — while LIGHT — different to all
matter, can be shielded from — electricity, magnetism, heat — **is** time dependent. THERE IS NO MATTER OR
MASS OR PARTICLE MEDIATION I GRAVITATION — maybe modern academy’s most
fundamentally invented delusion:

*h = ***6.62559
t34** JS = J(*fundamental universal angular momentum*) = *h = m*_{N}*c*_{0}*r*_{N}*
= c*_{0} × *n*[*mr/n *= (F/*a*)*r/n* = F*r/an* = E/*an*,
*n→∞*]
in *GravityForce*;

— Gravitation shows as a [physically measurable] force
[F=ma; m=F/a], not as a particle, not as a substance, not as a thing — and IT
is most heavily denied by and in modern academic quarters and corridors.
Disclaim,

— **It is only significant** for an idea of an imperialistic [MAC
1800+] inducement to also invent an idea that life as such and its possible
sensations should be based on THINGS, OBJECTS: PARTICLES: **manipulable
objects**. If
not, that type of associative inducement is running out of its life sustaining
oxygen. In related physics Force — gravitation, acceleration — is not a
substance, it has no mediating constituents, only the actual INERTIA OF MASS
against immediate positional change.

— **Time independence** — a physical FREEZE over any xyz
dimension in space, sampling all the positional parametric states of all the
possible masses, like one picture in a Hollywood animated movie — IS already
what the science of mathematics is — naturally based on: **a
set of definite quantities or their possible expressions over a given region of
2D or 3D space**:

— WHERE IS THE EXPRESSED AWE AND WONDER OVER THAT FANTASTIC
HUMAN NATURAL MIND time independent associative imaginative PHENOMENA IN
PRESENT SCIENCE, say. **Not one word**. It is there, from the beginning — and
most of us [fuckups] don’t even notice it — but use it, frequently. So, what’s
up with »gravitation»? Please do share.

When everything
comes about, it apparently is **trivial** — once the Oblivion of our Human
Nature is removed. The nature of understanding continuity — Modern 1800+
academy’s worst chapter [Dedekind, Cantor,
Weierstrass — ALLNumbers ¦ Dedkind’sBOX ¦ Cantor’sCardinalCombinatorics ¦ Weierstrass’ continuous function with no single
derivative — Example5
— »method = quantity»: the modern
arithmetization of analysis]. THE CONDITIONS were BETTER YEAR 1311.

So: Modern academy (had to: *drift*,
not plan) *invented* a »*no eternally existing Planck constant*» — in
order to satisfy, meet, the new 1800+ academic yearn for »*creative*»
intelligence emperorship — on basic existential ideas of a ”*creation*”.
Because outside that, *there is no such bullying*.

*From where the idea of an
ultimate creation has come — other than from a literal biblical interpretation
”In the beginning God created ..”, is not known here*:

— »Modern Academy 1800 + started to deny the rational cosmic
origin by taking the Old Testament’s first sentence Literally: modern academy
is based on a literal **erroneous**
interpretation of the old testament». Say again.

So: Modern academy *had* to
invent also the idea of the Created Cosmic existence’s »*limited existential*
mass».

Maybe also that is the explanation why modern business
enterprise has such a cheer for bald cuts:

— Very popular investment — until the end of it shows up:
removing the undisturbed root fungi natural evolution — by killing everything
above — and its continued provision, means an end life power decrease. Say
again [Simard2012
— The world democracy crisis phenomena illustrated].

That, however, despite the fact
that every scientist knows that (*wherever we look there is always more
behind ..*) energy — mass — cannot be created: mass has no origin, cannot be
related or explained to have an origin, because energy cannot (all the further
details in TheREVELATION, unless already familiar
— *Background*).

EverythingIncluded: BackGround

.. and reminded **Gravitational
energy equivalents**

E = G*m*^{2}/*r*
= G(*n*→∞)*m*^{2}/*r*(*n*→∞) ¦ the
cosmic MATHEMATICALLY EXPRESSED c0-body: endless supply provides
a constant [Kcell] pulsational work in *CosmoA*,

Available Gravitational Energy: G(*n*→∞)*m*_{2}^{2}/*r*(*n*→∞): SUPPLY(*m*→∞) – HEAT(*m*→γ) = Kcell **the cosmic central **pulsating K-cell : mathematics’ solution

**— Can you prove
that?**

— Not any more than — any stated — the actual mathematical
rank is perfectly clear. For the quantity independent ∞, see more related in PhysicsFirst, unless already familiar.

— And: **Yes**.

TNED in UH Feb2009

———————————————

LIGHT’S GRAVITATIONAL DEPENDENCY ¦ K-cell INNER PHYSICS ¦ Dark — invisible — Matter in TNED — SAND, huge amounts between the galaxies, 355 times more than visible matter*

*Huge amounts of debris — silicon associated matter — is a byproduct from the primary K-cell expansion and galaxy building processes. The internal galactic nuclear radiation pressure [not deduced in modern academy, see Suns4] pushes the debris out in a halo outside the galaxy, making its detection impossible — even so ’up to the size of footballs’ [Cambridge international astronomy reference, BA1978s360sp2n].

**Explain**: For the actual K-cell — our central cosmic
light and heat alive universe — and its position inside the the more vast
extending c0-body,
see

[Fig.1] LIGHT’S
GRAVITATIONAL DEPENDENCY. In related physics and mathematics
it explains the whole picture — as compared with present modern academic ideas
[Einstein and Schwarzchild mathematics].

— That is apparently on our table a comprehensively
cosmically most possible unitive — most provable — description as possibly
known available: **everything included**.

See further in EXPERIMENTAL CONFIRMATIONS.

TNED physics and mathematics should explain every possible
detail in the complex, nothing excluded — **or not at all**. See also from
TheNEUTRON.

Continue on

CONFIRMING THE 71% *r*_{0}
DEUTERON RADIUS (The *NeutronSquare*).

Dmax ¦ EverythingIncluded ¦ NuclearSize

NUCLEAR SIZE IN PRESENT ACADEMIC CORRIDORS

IN PRESENT SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE
(2000+) we (now Jul2023) find (NuclearSize)
quite different values and quantities compared with the nomenclature and
quantities in the instrumental epoch’s literature (1960-2000) — *with
(searched for, none found) no established attempt of clarifying these details
in explicit, which is the worst part of the story*; Searched for — none yet
found. It appears as an ugly »Hide».

*Somehow the (2023) present
Internet presentations have not much nerve for History telling: very poorly
represented, except for older (1900s) archive (PDF) texts, if at all available
(Reservation)
— all the scientific evolving exciting drama is there, and few seem to care.*

*Resolution in ComparingFrame
*

”more than 1000 nuclei have been measured”:

— Yes .. So, where is it? *No
visual — size map — presentation found*

Several web sites @Internet
(Jul2023) talk about type ”more than 1000 nuclei have been measured” on these
new academic premises — but yet not one presented table OR A SIMPLE *precise *DIAGRAM
of actual VALUES versus mass numbers (*A*) OR THE ENTIRE ATOMIC NUCLIDE
CHART MAPPING have been found.

As much as these productive academic text aces love
their math productions, one would expect a greater cheer for a more simple
visually direct overview.

— Something that the more simple people could take a look at. Study the structures. Compare them to Nature. Share the joy.

*Searched for, none found*

Not in the picture view. Not in the article text view. Not one.

NO COMPARING PRESENTATIONS.

*See ComparingFrame:
*

— Finally one (Free PDF table) found (14Aug2023, Angeli2004 — directly comparable with the deduced TNED results (AngeliTNED).

*See details from*

*Reservation: ***UH ignores the steady growing web sites that
interrupts the individual*** streaming of associative scientific
interest on this type:*

”**no access unless
cookies consent**”;

— Stop killing humanity:

— Cookies and HumanRightRecognition
have this in common: **nothing**.

Add to that the NO ACCESS IF NOT COOKIES CONSENT, and the scientific free HumanRight public interest has reduced to a minimum. That is worse than a funeral.

*The disappearing view of Size*

THE NEW ACADEMIC-SCIENTIFIC CHARGE RADIUS
NOMENCLATURE appears as such, as a closure of the (1900s) traditional
experimental physics: its (exciting) dramatic chase on the nature of nuclear
physics: size, morphology, *future technology*.

— The present academic community radiates instead a
more blurry pair of glasses to the interested tourist (compare the WikipediaQuote).
Shorter:

— *established texts advertises the death of
traditional physics nuclear science*.

*— It would also mean a
degeneration of human scientific ideation: machines (2023), not mind (1950),
rules science*.

ANY SENSIBLE SERIOUS HUMAN BEING WILL SOON START LOOKING FOR
THIS IN SUCH A CULTURE: freedom. Very.

(*The scientific academic
nuclear physics community is — unaware — committing public suicide — and
believes it is sad we do not join in ”the precision measurements of nuclear
size”*).

On the other hand:

— Who was expecting something different?

— Trying to Invent (Modern Academy
1800+) rather that Deduce (NATURE) will always end up in a last
standing chaos of everything (*»the death of truth ..»*).

The only hope for the still alive part of mankind
with these new physicist aces and their adorable cheer for precision
measurements on the Wikipedia popular ”charge radius”
would be:

— BEHIND THE ACADEMIC FANCY PROVISIONS there *is*
a true *explainable* relatable deducible form *still awaiting to appear*
that collects all these aces results in one hat. However not yet divulged.
Because when it comes to these ”precision measurements” in themselves, they *expose* »crap».
They just entertain a heap of *difficult to understand* experimentalists *in
their inducement of being engaged at all* — giving no real steel *delivery*.
**Nothing is explained**. It is just (»completely
meaningless») data, only collecting space on a growing pile of papers. *Science
does not develop anymore*. SCIENCE DOES NOT DELIVER ANYMORE. *It
has instead transformed to a dark consuming mass hole*