THE ATOMIC NUCLEUS 2023VII15 | a  production ·  |  Senast uppdaterade version: 2023-12-21 · Universums Historia  ♦   HumanRight is a knowledge domain

 

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

 

Atomic masses —  AtomicNucleus — INTRODUCTION,  nuclear radii, basic nuclides, comparing early Weizsäcker solutions ¦ STANDARD UNIVERSAL — divergence c0 = 2.99792458 T8 M/S is preserved independent of gravitation.

The Atomic Nucleus I  Jun2023 — DeducingTHErZ ¦ TAN II  Sep2023 — comparing nuclear physics ¦ TAN III  Nov2023 —  relating Earth crust isotopic compositions ¦ TAN IV  Dec2023 —  FusionLimitMass FULIMA

 

 

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  ¦ TheRESULTinSUM ¦ 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  r0 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 true physical nuclear properties or features. Not even close. That is excluded. The experiments instead expose — and prove — a relation (rZ/r) between a true nuclear surface (structural electric displacement) charge extension (rZ) from the nuclear spin center axis, and its relation — percentage (rZ/r) — to the true nuclear gravity circle radius (rToro). These give an end TNED Orange [(rZ)²/r] relational, no direct nuclear physical and so a hypothetical not at all real steel physically existent metric property quantity  rZ×(rZ/r) = (rZ)²/r. And that quantity, the Orange concurring Blue Angeli2004 world collected nuclear data, is apparently the present academic community idea of a ”nuclear rms charge radii”. It apparently is delusively an experimental property: The atomic nucleus has no ”charge radius” property. That is an invented property in modern quarters: It is a delusion, blocking a deeper understanding. The atomic nucleus has only a surface nuclear limited electric charge displacement extension property, the TNED deduced rZ. The true nuclear site — so apparently the TNED deduced atomic nucleus — cannot be experimentally pinpointed (with present technology). No way — except possibly unconditionally introducing spin polarized targets (and using interacting magnetic moment models).

   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 ”r0=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).

 

IT WAS NEVER CREATED

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 — TNEDbegin1993

TheFUNDAMENTAL:

THE ATOMIC NUCLEUS

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

 

———————————————

Potential Barrier ¦

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 = » mωr2 + mωr2 = mωr2 »;  » 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 = 2πr/T = (2π/T)r = ωr; mvr = mωr2; nuclear top spin ω = 2πf is universally conserved.

                                      ; mω(r→r/√2)2 + mω(r→r/√2)2 = 2mω(r/√2)2 = mωr2 ¦  mω(r)2 + mω(r)2 = 2mω(r→r/√2)2 = mωr2 = 2mω(r/√2)2 = 2mω(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

              ; 2mω(r/√2)2 + 2mω(r/√2)2 = 4mω(r/√2)2 = 2mωr2 ¦ 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 (mA=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 = mNc0rN 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) = mc2: 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 = J0 + NJ1. In related physics (TNED) the N-factor apparently defines the (basic) property of and in nuclear physics (the Planck constant structure). Its exact form can be determined through the so suggested Planck fractal toroidal system on the two top levels J0 and J1. That is (in this history’s reference), a determination of the N-factor in J1 with a basic approximate help of The Cube Analogy and its cube graph. It has in part already been introduced during the 1900s instrumental epoch (1960-1999) using the proton radius preference r0 = 1.37 Fermi. See details with references in

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)

RA = rA[(cos 180°/N)–1–1]+2(rA+r2mA/rA) in PREFIXxSIN N and m are the toroid form factors

Cref

 

K   =  R/r

R/t = C = [ T ] = a/(b +a) = 1/(b/a +1) = C; 1/C – 1 = b/a ¦

2A = 360°/N ¦  A = 180°/N  ¦ cos(180/N) = C ¦ a/(b+a) = cosA = cos(180/N) = C , = 1/(b/a+1) ; 1/C – 1 = b/a ¦ PREFIXxSIN

 

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). RA (=r) denotes the top ring radius and rA 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 (and Deducing the rZ factor).

 

NuclearTopSPINN: TheNuclearMASSprinciple

 

 

 A1A2spec

 

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 Deducing the rZ factor.

 

 

   In order to solve for the form factors, the RA-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+ ..

 

 ¦ N3m20RESULTS

 

— 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.

 

 

INTRODUCTION 

 

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 ..

 

 

 

The collected quotes

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 — how much of the actual nucleus occupies the underlying top spinning body charge: for a sphere the relation = 1 — between the hydrogen nucleus and all the other nuclei. This part is accounted for in te (Jul2008) section HOFSTADTER’S PIONEERING ELECTRON SCATTERING EXPERIMENTS during the 1950s. See Charge Density Distribution.

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.

 

 

 N3m20results

 

TCQ: N3m20results

 

THE COLLECTED QUOTES

 

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 .. :

rP = rN(√8)/(1+√3) = h/mNc0 ×  (√8)/(1+√3) = 1.36621366244489 t15 M ≈ 1.37 Fermi ¦ rN = 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

NuclearCurves

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

 

 

 

m          = 20

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

k           = 0.4404609822

r0          = 1

rTORO   = 0.44 r0A1/2

rCUBE   =         r0A1/3

 

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 MaxA.

 

— By (1993) simply using the ”found to provide consistent results”, see (CubeAnalogy) HOPr0 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            = kr0A1/2

k           = [√ 2m(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

 

r            = r0A1/3

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

TheFollowing:

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 HOPr0

 

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

TNED NUCLEAR RADII.

 

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: 118Ui293.

 

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.

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Deuteron1CON: 18Jul2023

Deuteron2CON

 

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 = kr0A1/2) 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 r0/√2 ≈ 0.71r0 (The 0.71 Criterion).

 

 

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

 

 

The r0 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 rD = r0/√2 ≈ 0.71r0, the necessity in finding an eventual confirmation based on already known instrumental-experimental basis became imperative.

» .. 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 ro+ and

a for a’(+)np and

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

R for the source’s rD ”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/√2µED = h/2π√2µED. The term ED is specified 2.23 MeV as the deuteron binding energy.

Investigating h¹/√2µED ..

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√2µED

 

ED in MeV times T6 times 1.602 t19 Coulomb = ED in Joule, mD in atomic mass units (2.01410222u) with u=1.66033 t27 KG and h=6.62559 t34 JS

 

we get the ”rD” = 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 rD 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–R2/a=(1/a)(Ra–R2), ra/2=Ra–R2; R2–Ra=–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 r0=1.37   ;

R           = 3.15r0

 

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 r0=1.37   ;

R           = 0.77r0

 

Conclusive result ..

92.2% VERIFIED.

 

With the TNED given 0.71r0, 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 ..

 

 

Deuteron1CON

 

Deuteron2CON: Jul2023 —

Deuteron1CON ¦ Derivation 

 

 

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: mω(r→r/√2)2 + mω(r→r/√2)2 = 2mω(r/√2)2 = mωr2 — J(PROTON)=mωr2=J(DEUTERON)=2mω(r/√2)2 real mass defect 1.52me = 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.

 

TheFirst: Jul2023

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 1H2

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

 

 

                                      J = » mωr2 + mωr2 = mωr2 »;  » 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 = 2πr/T = (2π/T)r = ωr; mvr = mωr2; nuclear top spin ω = 2πf is universally conserved.

                                      ; mω(r→r/√2)2 + mω(r→r/√2)2 = 2mω(r/√2)2 = mωr2 ¦  mω(r)2 + mω(r)2 = 2mω(r→r/√2)2 = mωr2 = 2mω(r/√2)2 = 2mω(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

              ; 2mω(r/√2)2 + 2mω(r/√2)2 = 4mω(r/√2)2 = 2mωr2 ¦ 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

A0 +(fusion)+ A0 = A1 : (A1=[A=2], the deuteron) :

————————————————————————————————

m          = ProtonMass:

r            = ProtonRadius:

——————————————

J            = mωr2 .....................    = proton J

             = 2mω(r/√2)2 ...........    = deuteron J  : 2mω(r/√2)2 = 2mω(r2/2) = mωr2 ¦ really. No doubt.

             = mω(r/√2)2 + mω(r/√2)2 ¦ and this is apparently another expression for A0 +(fusion)+ A0 = A1 :

             = 2[mω(r/√2)2] .......    again:

             = 2mω(r/√2)2 ...........    = deuteron J  : 2mω(r/√2)2 = 2mω(r2/2) = mωr2 ¦ really. No doubt:

                    = mωr2 .....................    = proton J. Same angular momentum J. EXACTLY.

————————————————————————————————

 

IDEALLY WITHOUT THE MASS DEFECT = the fusing energy work = 1.52me ¦

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 ..»

mωr2 + mωr2 – (m→γ) = 2mω(r/√2)2 – (m→γ) = mωr2 – (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

mωr2 + mωr2 – (m→γ) = 2[m–Δm]ω([r–Δr]/√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.

 

mωr2 + mωr2                 = 2[m–Δm]ω([r–Δr]/√2)2 + (m→γ)

                                       = 2mω(r/√2)2   ¦  playing the movie backwards : regaining destructed mass

= mωr2                     ¦ 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»;

Nuclear radii change

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 ..»

mωr2 + mωr2 – (m→γ) = 2mω(r/√2)2 – (m→γ) = mωr2 – (m→γ)

proton  +  proton                          =  deuteron

 

On the comparing A=1 and A=2:

♦   Same angular momentum J. EXACTLY.

— No, not necessarily: ω = J/mr2 = 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:

 

mωr2                 = 2mω(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 A0:s r to an A1: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

DEUTERON 1CON.

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 4He 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

ReHofstadter1956.

 

 

Deuteron2CON ¦ Deuteron1CON  

 

NUCLEARradius: 20Jul2023

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

 

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

rP = rN(√8)/(1+√3) = h/mNc0 ×  (√8)/(1+√3) = 1.36621366244489 t15 M ≈ 1.37 Fermi ¦ rN = h/mNc0 = 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):

 

rZ          = [1/r3 + 3ΨkA/Ze]–1/3/r0          ; rZ  has Z connection — provided  k>0 — Hofstadter1956 electron scattering conditions:

rZ EXTENDS WITH INCREASING  r A Z             ;

k           = 0                                             ; rZ  has no Z connection

rZr0       = 1/r                                           ;

rZ          = 1/r0r

             = 1/r0(r0k√A)                             ; k = ½ ¦ A>1

             = 2/r02√A                                   ; approaches zero with growing A —— rZ  has no Z connection

 

(rZr0)–3  = 1/r3 + 3ΨkA/Ze                      ;

(rZr0)–3 – 1/r–3 = 3ΨkA/Ze                      ;

kA/Ze    = 3Ψ/[(rZr0)–3 – 1/r–3]             ;

Ze         = kA[(rZr0)–3 – 1/r–3] /3Ψ        ;

Z           = kA[(rZr0)–3 – 1/r–3] /3eΨ      ; INTEGERS (also A):

:

r            = kr0√A                                     ; r has no Z connection

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»].

 

rZ          = [1/r3 + 3ΨkA/Ze]–1/3/r0          ; rZ := rZ ¦ r has no Z connection

(rZr0)–3  = 1/r3 + 3ΨkA/Ze                      ;

1/r3       = (rZr0)–3 – 3ΨkA/Ze                 ;

r            = [(rZr0)–3 – 3ΨkA/Ze]–3            ; the rZ and  A/Ze generates a parametric cancel ¦ Table4 col.AY-AZ NuclearSize2023.ods

             = kr0√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.

 

GravityCircle:

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.

 

 

ConfirmingThe71

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/M2 ¦ A=2: 239.375 KG/M2 ¦ All stable isotopes 1H2¦239.375—83Bi209¦237.677 KG/M²: AV: 237.5568386227 KG/M2.

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

Lin2019:

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

HOP1967:

”  This method yields the values 1.2 × 10–13 A1/3 cm for the nuclear radius, if the nucleus is

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

HOPr0, Method (4).

 

Angeli2004Q:

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

 

 

 

NUCLEAR RADIUS

 

ProtonRADIUS:

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

 

ThePROTONGravityCircleRadius r0 = 1.37 Fermi ¦ 1 Fermi = 1 t15 M = 10–15 M

 

rN = h/mNc0 = 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

rN × √8/(1+√3) ..........  = 1.36621366244489 t15 M directly from the NeutronSquare = r0

r0 = (me/mN)(1/π√8 + π[1–me/mN])h/mec0π

..................................    = 1.366216806510 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] = AmN(1 – mDme) = 2.0140904796 compared to the experimentally measured 2003 Berkeley Lab data 2.0141018, and the 1967 HOP table  2.01410222. These two latter (and also the 2005 NIST/Codata source) are practically identical with only small end deviations.

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

 

DEDUCTION

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.

 

me = m(e)u        = 0.000548598u

mN = m(N)u      = 1.008665200u

rN                      = h/(mNc0) = 1.3196610608 t15 M; 1.32 Fermi ¦ h= 6.62559 t34 JS ¦ c0 = 2.99792458 T8 M/S

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

 

r0 = (merNc0/h)(re + h(mec0)–1[1–me/mN]) = 1.366216806510 t15 M ≈ 1.37 Fermi

r0 = (merNc0/h)(re + h(mec0)–1[1–me/mN])           ;

r0 = (merNc0/h)(re + πR[1–me/mN])                     ;

r0 = (me/mN)(re + πR[1–me/mN])                        ;

re = R/π√8                                                           ;

r0 = (me/mN)(R/π√8 + πR[1–me/mN])                 ;

r0 = R(me/mN)(1/π√8 + π[1–me/mN])                  ;

R = h/(mec0π)                                                      ; the actual energy circle R as TNED deduced in the hydrogen spectrum (same as the Bohr model)

r0 = (me/mN)(1/π√8 + π[1–me/mN])h/mec0π

r0 = (me/mN)(1/π√8 + π[1–me/mN])h/mec0π        ; the proton radius :

r0 = 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                   = 1.0352785629 ¦ a

r0NES/rN                   = 1.0352761804 ¦ 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)  = 3Ze/4πR3 possessing a positive charge +Ze, 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.

 

 

ProtonRADIUS 

 

WikipediaChargeRadius:

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

WikipediaDisinform

 

”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 [HOPr01967], 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 ≈ r0A1⁄3

 

where the empirical constant r0 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]”.

 

HOP1967, p9—12:

” 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 = A1/3r0          r0 = 1.37 × 1013 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 (ToroRingGravityCircleRADIUS ¦ 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

 

ComparingFrame:

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 : r0 :

r0 = (me/mN)(1/π√8 + π[1–me/mN])h/mec0π ; the proton radius . No way.

 

 

 

 

We have (exactly) the same comparing situation here between the Angeli2004 collected experimentally results and TNED results (DeducingTHErZ), as in the Q/V ReHofstadter1956 case (HofLIST ¦ Hofstadter/TNED): TNED is featuring a Collector/Explanator/Revelator — explaining nuclear physics experimental results on a true natural morphological foundation, do disclaim if inconvenient, on an apparently close relationship — see also NoStatistics: comparing atomic masses (modern academy is outclassed). Further in EquationToSolve.

 

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 2z 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):

 

r0 = (me/mN)(1/π√8 + π[1–me/mN])h/mec0π

r0 = (me/mN)(1/π√8 + π[1–me/mN])h/mec0π        ; the proton radius : me = 0.000548598u ¦ u = 1.66033 t27 KG = m(C12)/12 ¦ mN = 1.0086652u.

r0 = 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 r0 = 1.37 t15 M units. It apparently matches the corresponding stable bulk of isotopic nuclei from the Angeli2004 data, but on the form of Nuclear Charge rms values

— 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, rZ.

— 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 results in 1 Fermi units matches TNED results in 1.37 Fermi units — there is obviously a simple connection between the deduced TNED basic nuclear mathematics and the more established experimental results. Further attempts from TNED to map apparently not reasonable existing experimental data to the sizing dimensions and properties of the TNED deduced atomic nuclei, seems on the above given result have reached a closure. The onset to this whole dramatic history was introduced by the (1956) Hofstadter electron scattering experiments. See from ReHofstadter1956.

 

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 (rZ)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 The Whole Picture.

 

 

 

r¦rZresult: rZ 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 rZ/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 rZ/r has only the N3m15 nucleus 1H1 with 99.99973718% rZ/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 rZ 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.

 

 

ComparingFrame

 

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 r0 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 r0 factor is well defined (ProtonRadius). The proof is so certified:

r0 = (me/mN)(1/π√8 + π[1–me/mN])h/mec0π

r0 = (me/mN)(1/π√8 + π[1–me/mN])h/mec0π        ; the proton radius : me = 0.000548598u ¦ u = 1.66033 t27 KG = m(C12)/12 ¦ mN = 1.0086652u.

r0 = 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 (rZ)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 r0= 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 ”r0=1.37 Fermi preference in practical nuclear physics”. But practical nuclear physics r0  apparently do so (ComparingFrame). That is a »Hammer»: TNED apparently explains physics. Shorter:

 

— 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 (generally) also so in all other nuclear experimental cases: modern ideas are far from catching the true picture. With growing nuclear size the deviations decrease (except in the case of atomic masses, see NoStatistics), and matching reaches almost 100% on the heavier end part of the nuclei chart. A more complete collected nuclear size mapping is shown in WholePicture (attesting there are experimental results also adopting to the first chart part).

 

 

Angeli2004: 14Aug2023

AngeliTNED

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, Kα 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) charge radius size data : a direct apparently only available morphologically TNED explainable nuclear metric property:

 

 

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 apparently spheric nuclear oriented community — its established ideas on physics and mathematics, as apparently so (rZ)²/r safely certified. See also further collected nuclear size data in TheWholePicture.

   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 ”charge” size calculations/measurements — not the true TNED related metric nuclear size and extension properties rZ and r themselves as such. The actual — apparently only TNED explaining — parameters are: rZ and r. Finally (Jul2023) extracted from comparing on the ReHofstadter1956 results. Shorter: the result suggests that it is TNED that apparently envelopes present Angeli2004 collected science world community nuclear physics measurements, in, as it apparently can be interpreted, explaining the real steel physics nature behind the experimental values.

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

 

The internal explanation in »The Hammer»

The  r0 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 r0 = 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 Rp,el  = 0.895(18) fm [13]. The evaluation of high

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

yielded Rp,LS = 0.883(14) fm [14]. The weighted average

(av) of these two independent data is Rp,av = 0.887(11)

fm.”,

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

scattering resulted in Rd,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: Rd2 – Rp2 = 3.8212(15) fm2 [16].

Using this as a constraint between Rp,av and Rd,el in a

weighted least-squares adjustment procedure, we have

Rp = 0.8791(88) fm and Rd = 2.1402(91) fm as listed in

Table 1.”,

Angeli2004.

 

 

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:

 

 

 

 A1A2spec

 

 

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:

 

r0 = (me/mN)(1/π√8 + π[1–me/mN])h/mec0π

r0 = (me/mN)(1/π√8 + π[1–me/mN])h/mec0π        ; the proton radius : me = 0.000548598u ¦ u = 1.66033 t27 KG = m(C12)/12 ¦ mN = 1.0086652u.

r0 = 1.366216806510 t15 M ≈ 1.37 Fermi         ; same values as in the NEUTRON SQUARE — here derived from Planck constant h

 

 

Bottom line:

The r0 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

 

WholePicture: 16Aug2023 —— 

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

NuclearCurves

THE WHOLE PICTURE ¦ plusCUBEgraph

DataSpecifications:

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)

 

r0 = (me/mN)(1/π√8 + π[1–me/mN])h/mec0π

r0 = (me/mN)(1/π√8 + π[1–me/mN])h/mec0π        ; the proton radius : me = 0.000548598u ¦ u = 1.66033 t27 KG = m(C12)/12 ¦ mN = 1.0086652u.

r0 = 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.

 

 

 

WholePicture ¦ TWP

 

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 — r0 = 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:

 

 

r0 = (me/mN)(1/π√8 + π[1–me/mN])h/mec0π

r0 = (me/mN)(1/π√8 + π[1–me/mN])h/mec0π        ; the proton radius : me = 0.000548598u ¦ u = 1.66033 t27 KG = m(C12)/12 ¦ mN = 1.0086652u.

r0 = 1.366216806510 t15 M ≈ 1.37 Fermi         ; same values as in the NEUTRON SQUARE — here derived from Planck constant h = 6.62559 t34 JS

 

Congruence:

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 ReHofstadter1956 case (HofLIST ¦ Hofstadter/TNED). TNED apparently features a Collector/Explanator/Revelator — explaining nuclear physics experimental results on a true natural morphological foundation, do disclaim if inconvenient, on an apparently close relationship — see also NoStatistics: comparing atomic masses (modern academy is outclassed).

— 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 (generally) also so in all other nuclear experimental cases: modern ideas are far from catching the true picture. With growing nuclear size the deviations decrease (except in the case of atomic masses, see NoStatistics), and matching reaches almost 100% on the heavier end part of the nuclei chart. A more than below complete collected nuclear size mapping is shown in WholePicture.

 

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):

 

 

r0 = (me/mN)(1/π√8 + π[1–me/mN])h/mec0π

r0 = (me/mN)(1/π√8 + π[1–me/mN])h/mec0π        ; the proton radius : me = 0.000548598u ¦ u = 1.66033 t27 KG = m(C12)/12 ¦ mN = 1.0086652u.

r0 = 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 (generally) also so in all other nuclear experimental cases: modern ideas are far from catching the true picture. With growing nuclear size the deviations decrease (except in the case of atomic masses, see NoStatistics), and matching reaches almost 100% on the heavier end part of the nuclei chart. A more complete collected nuclear size mapping is shown in WholePicture (attesting there are experimental results also adopting to the first chart part).

 

 

— The TNED deduced nuclear surface charge extension rZ

(DeducingTHErZ)

with the TNED deduced toroid gravity circle radius r

(ToroRadius ¦ DEDUCTION 1993 ¦ 2023,  Derivation)

apparently is a collector

(ComparingFrame)

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 Michelson and Morley experiments 1881+  ¦ related: Max Planck photoelectric effect

light develops not centrifugal properties 

The Solar Eclipse Expeditions 1919+ 

EXPERIMENTAL CONFIRMATIONS

 

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  rZ2/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.

 

r0          = 1.37 Fermi rounded, see ProtonRadius deduced ¦ 1Fermi = 1 t15 M

Ψ(psi)   = 2b(πa)2

r            = ½r0√A ToroRADIUS ¦  A>1

rZ         = [1/r3 + 3ΨkA/Ze]–1/3/r0

(A>1)Ψ = 0.5947063465 = 2b(πa)2 = (π/4)2(1 – 7/2 + 2√3)

3Ψk      = 0.0033095408 T25 ¦  A>1

rZ         = [1/r3 + 0.0033095408 T25 A/Ze]–1/3/r0

(A=1)Ψ = 0.0089007893 = 2b(πa)2

3Ψk      = 0.0000495329 T25 ¦  A=1

rZ         = [1/r03 + 0.0000495329 T25 1/e]–1/3/r0

             = 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+ 

EXPERIMENTAL CONFIRMATIONS

 

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

The Electron Mass Element and

SCATTERING EXPERIMENTS IN GENERAL (SEIG).

 

 

 

EquationToSolve  ¦  WholePicture ¦  HoldingPoints  ¦  ComparingFrame  ¦  ProtonRADIUS ¦ TheHammerExplanation

 

NuclearSize:

ProtonRADIUS ¦ Articles

 

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 ¦

 

 

 A1A2spec

 

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 = 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: 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

3Li7 ¦ 4Be9 ¦ 5B11 ¦ 6C13 ¦ 7N15 ¦ 8O17 ¦ 9F19 ¦ 10Ne21 ¦ 11Na23 ¦ 12Mg25 ¦ 13Al27 ¦ 14Si29 ¦ 15P31 ¦ 16S33 ¦ 17Cl35 ¦ 19K39 ¦ 

— 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.

 

 

NuclearSize ¦ NeutronExcess

 

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) mK = 4.14 T53 KG UNIVERSE in the general cosmic c0-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 mK 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 = Fr/an = E/an], n→∞) in plusCubeGraph,

h = 6.62559 t34 JS = J(fundamental universal angular momentum) = h = mNc0rN = c0 × n[mr/n = (F/a)r/n = Fr/an = E/an, n→∞] in GravityForce,

 

and reminded

 

Gravitational energy equivalents

E = Gm2/r = G(n→∞)m2/r(n→∞) ¦ the cosmic MATHEMATICALLY EXPRESSED c0-body: endless supply provides a constant [Kcell] pulsational work in CosmoA,

Available Gravitational Energy: G(n→∞)m22/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, = c0 × n[mr/n = (F/a)r/n = Fr/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 IN GRAVITATION — maybe modern academy’s most fundamentally invented delusion:

h = 6.62559 t34 JS = J(fundamental universal angular momentum) = h = mNc0rN = c0 × n[mr/n = (F/a)r/n = Fr/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 = Gm2/r = G(n→∞)m2/r(n→∞) ¦ the cosmic MATHEMATICALLY EXPRESSED c0-body: endless supply provides a constant [Kcell] pulsational work in CosmoA,

Available Gravitational Energy: G(n→∞)m22/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*

¦ The c0 Body

*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% r0 DEUTERON RADIUS (The NeutronSquare).

 

 

Dmax ¦ EverythingIncluded ¦ NuclearSize

 

AcademicNucSize:

 

 

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

ComparingFrame.

Reservation:

HumanRightRecognition

 

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.

— In a way, this author would be happy to be proven more than narrow minded on this issue: »there is light ahead». The presented data does not connect — yet.

 

 

The experiments does not experiment on real steel physics, anymore,

but on fancy computer models of physics, far from contact with the individual human.

The experiments does not describe the nature of physics, anymore,

but the nature of Hollywood Rendering. So to speak.

Established Physics Science is dead. He died.

— Like on the graveyard: nobody survived.

WikipediaDisinform: WikipediaChargeRadius 

Reservation

Compare present (22Aug2023) Wikipedia — clearly a disinfomative text — on ”Proton radius puzzle”:

 

22Aug2023

Wikipedia, Proton radius puzzle

 

" The proton radius puzzle is an unanswered problem in physics relating to the size of the proton.[1]",

"  Historically the proton charge radius was measured by two independent methods, which converged to a value of about 0.877 femtometres (1 fm = 10−15 m).",

 

— No. HOPr01967: The (an) historically (1950+) documented PROTON RADIUS value is 1.37 Fermi = 1.37 × 10-15 M — and it has — provably down to the very last cosmic atom — nothing at all with the present scientific community’s more popular CHARGE RADIUS term to do. No mentioning. No history. No information.

———————————————

Angeli2004 ¦ AngeliTNED ¦ ComparingFrame  ¦ TheAtomicNucleus ¦ WikipediaChargeRadius

 

 

"  This value was challenged by a 2010 experiment using a third method, which produced a radius about 4% smaller than this, at 0.842 femtometres.[2] New experimental results reported in the autumn of 2019 agree with the smaller measurement, as does a re-analysis of older data published in 2022. While some believe that this difference has been resolved,[3][4] this opinion is not yet universally held.[5][6]

",

@INTERNET Wikipedia  Proton radius puzzle (22Aug2023)

 

It is (embarrassingly) apparent that

1.   Historical (1900s) Documents on the Nuclear Size terminology is (embarrassingly) non-existently represented @Internet — or Internet has become so (»no access unless cookies consenting») corrupted, that only certain human persons have full access to normally (Internet from the start) fully free scientific text documents:

2.  The Wikipedia author is apparently a victim of Cultural Oblivion — completely unaware of the 1900s scientific encyclopedic literature.

3. 4%. Re-analyzed from older data.

 

The general Wikipedia  reader is advised to buckle up, and take on a safe helmet before reading the articles, just in case ..

 

 

That (the now described) present experimental physics on the level of nuclear physic is measuring not on nuclear physics but on some diffuse unclear not really scientific but new popular academic heavy aided computer model of an academic invented popular nuclear nucleus (»the chopped ”charge radius” version — bringing humanity back to a mental stage before the stone age, unless disclaimed»), will be evident from the following excerpt — as quoted on the level of the expertized populations:

— the actual academia nomenclature to examplify.

 

LiQUOTEex:

WikipediaDisinform

QUOTING EXAMPLE

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0092640X21000267

COMPILATION OF RECENT NUCLEAR GROUND STATE CHARGE RADIUS MEASUREMENTS

AND TESTS FOR MODELS, Li et al., 2021

Marked text here for key references only:

established terminology .. and its meaning ..

 

”   So far, the root-mean-square (rms) charge radii of more than 1000 nuclei have been measured by two types of experiments in general: (i) the charge radii of stable nuclei were measured by charged particle scattering experiment, (ii) the charge radii of radionuclides were measured by charge radii changes ..

 extracted from laser spectroscopy and ..

 X-ray isotope shifts [7], [8]. In recent years, with the development of experiment technology, more and more rms charge radii of unstable nuclei have been measured for the first time by charge radii changes ..

 [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35] from laser spectroscopy experiments.

It is therefore interesting to systematically study the new experimental data.

”,

 the text omits copied mathematical terms and expressions .. here added manually ..

”   In the beginning, the nuclear charge radius R0 is usually described by the

A1/3  law: R0 = r0A1/3 , where A is the mass number.

 

With more experimental data being obtained, it was found that the isospin and shell effects also play very important roles for the charge radius [2], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41].

 

The rms nuclear charge radius can be self-consistently calculated by using microscopic nuclear mass models, such as the Skyrme–Hartree–Fock–Bogoliubov (HFB) model [42], [43] and the relativistic mean field (RMF) model [44], [45].

 

In addition, the nuclear charge radius can also be predicted by using some local relations [46], [47], [48] such as the Garvey–Kelson relations (GKRs). It is necessary to test the predictive power of these different models for the description of nuclear charge radius based on new measured data.

 

In addition, nuclear rms charge radius is closely related to deformation parameters. It is therefore interesting to study the influence of deformation parameters on the calculation of nuclear rms charge radius.

”,

”   The structure of this paper is as follows: In Section 2, 236 experimental data for nuclear rms charge radii from laser spectroscopy experiments are compiled and the corresponding uncertainties are analyzed.

”,

”   New data on nuclear charge radii

 

The mean square charge radius difference

δ¦ r² ¦^A’A = ¦ r² ¦^A — ¦ r² ¦^A’

between isotopes can be obtained from the isotope shift based on laser spectroscopy experiment. Therefore, mean square charge radius can be written as

¦ r² ¦^A = ¦ r² ¦^A’ + δ¦ r² ¦^A’A

The rms charge radius can be calculated from the following formula

rc(A) = √ ¦ r² ¦^A = √¦ r² ¦^A’ + δ¦ r² ¦^A’A

where A’

 represents the mass number of stable reference isotope. According to the calculation method of uncertainty, the uncertainty of nuclear rms charge radius from ...

”,

the ¦ delimiting characters in the quoted text have the original statistical nomenclature designations type

The quoted text is not fully available ..

30Jul2023:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0092640X21000267

COMPILATION OF RECENT NUCLEAR GROUND STATE CHARGE RADIUS MEASUREMENTS AND TESTS FOR MODELS, Li et al., 2021

 

 

NOTE: ”from laser spectroscopy” — not explained as connected to the subject in detail in any reasonably found @Internet source.

See Reservation. So. The text just becomes transformed to a Message: no scientific information on details.

 

 

@Internet (22Aug2023 — laser spectroscopy, what is it, what does it do?

— Practically no accessible text documents at all exist.

— Wikipedia does not even have the article as such ”laser spectroscopy”.

— Most ”laser spectroscopy” web pages have either ”no access unless cookies consenting” — or Buy This PDF for some $100 a piece.

— Practically No Available Technical Information at all — for free.

 

So, what does it do? Test answer:

 

— LASER SPECTROSCOPY uses a laser to affect matter — atoms and their nuclei — by, for example, pushing/heating ionizing energy, preparing for an accelerated beam of ionized atoms, i.e., their electron deprived nuclei. From there, further (laser — frequency, wavelength) detectors and sensors sample the data — which is fed into a the famous modern academic variably invented »Computer Model Atom Center of Intelligence Headquarter».

— In general, the ”laser spectroscopy” precision measurements is not measuring on any matter at all: it measures/senses/detects light wave changes which data is fed into already academic consented Atom and Nuclear Models.

— The laser as such measures nothing at all connected to mass physics. Only the light (electric and magnetic) emitted by it.

   Why would that be so hard to interpose in a short note, say. ”Buy PDF”.

— Where is the established information?

 

 

These quoted mathematics are all statistical expressions of highly computerized aided instrumental measuring expeditions — that definitely lie beyond any traditionally equipped individual capability. Compare

 

”The rms nuclear charge radius can be self-consistently calculated by using microscopic nuclear mass models, such as the Skyrme–Hartree–Fock–Bogoliubov (HFB) model ”, Li et al., 2021 as quoted above.

 

RELATED Elementary Nuclear physics — nuclear size — cannot be handled on the above quoted type of level. No way. And maybe that is neither the intention behind the engagement. However, the above quoted apparently represents the present (2021+) level of presentations in modern academic corridors:

— messages to the world populations from an elite of PhD:s.

In a way: why do these aces at all show these Papers in public — if the access to the details — questioning, study, research — is blocked, limited?

— What is the purpose? Apparently not a serious scientific one — in front of an interested human being.

— There is no debate arguing any longer — possible to follow by an average interested student.

 

— Why do we adore these aces so much?

— Because they are doing the work we cannot. And .. Eventually awaiting »the final count down» to some real steel physics presentation: the atomic nucleus. All results.

 

 

AcademicNucSize

 

NoStatistics: CCD

 

In related physics — TNED — nuclear size (r) does not connect nuclear charge (Z): there is no connecting mathematics. See DeducingTHErZ.

— Why? TheAtomicNucleus.

— Because the TNED related nuclear charge property is a nuclear surface — electric displacement — property.. No volume associated property.

COMPARING ON RELATED PHYSICS ..

It is the Hofstadter1956 results that are responsible for that — in TNED. See from ReHofstadter1956.

TheFINALrZ:  rZ = [1/r3 + 3Ψ k A/Ze]–1/3/r0

 

ChargeDensityDistribution ¦ NoNucleons ¦ NoStatistics

 

This domain Universe History related physics and mathematics does not use statistics. Statistics has no representation here other that quotes from the scientific community. Compare the

Deduction of Planck Radiation law from the Planck — not Boltzmann — entropy expression.

 THE FORMULA AS SUCH — BUT NOT THE DEDUCTION — HAS VERY WELL AN ESTABLISHED REPRESENTATION — No statistics in related physics and mathematics. No probability ideas. No way. MODERN ACADEMY IS OUTCLASSED — because of its crunch for INVENTING rather than DEDUCING. Also compare: AllKeplerMATH: No relativity theory.

In no cosmic way at all.

 

Compare some results:

 

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.

 

 

In modern academy (GRAY) the mass defects (mD) are calculated from nuclear — not the whole atom (ORANGE) related physics from (2003) NeutronSquare Elliptic functions — preferences. Result: TNED deduced related physics and mathematics outclasses the modern academic idea of the atom and the atomic nucleus, as so confirmed by experimentally measured atomic masses: TNED + experiment = true. The DIFFgraph shows all stable nuclei related to experimental values by the two comparing different partys TNED ORANGE (close to identity 1) and MAC GRAY (apparently far from any match).

   It should be noted (here Jul2023) that the above illustrated orange result partly is based on a simplified wave mathematics solution directly from the Neutron Square. In the later (2020) developed Elliptic Equations for also the heavy nuclide chart part, even more revised precise results appear from (the very demanding and time consuming) elliptic iterative solutions. See further details in EXOTHERMAL FUSION EXAMPLES.

 

There is no reference for a fair comparison: TNED outclasses MAC. No corresponding math exists. See Comparison. TNED and MAC apparently represents two different realms.

 

The above accounted atomic mass chart result was the reason why UniverseHistory was introduced @Internet Aug2008: modern academy is apparently outclassed by TNED.

And there is apparently no academic chair, table or class that can make room for the intruder except taking the entire complex down to the dust from where it was built.

   And so we had to find proof disclaiming that profane discovery. Searched for. Non yet found. Search continues.

NoNucleons:

NoStatistics

 

 

In modern academy (MAC) n and p nucleons (free spinning neutrons n and protons p with internal smaller spinning Quarks) constitute the general A>1 atomic nucleus. It is thought in MAC that the p nucleon builds the nucleus-surface charge (Z) on the summing mass number

A = n + (p=Z) nucleons.

 

In related physics (TNED) and mathematics the deduced Planck Ring fractal hollow toroid atomic nucleus has no inner finite constituents or particles (Force ¦ GravityForce). The nucleus receives its nuclear charge (Z) on an electric displacement (nuclear magnetic moment) basis (TEPRIS). The basic concept has no form or type or nature of representation in modern quarters — other than the Planck constant quantity h=mcr. No way.

See also The AZ nuclear chart and SPECTRUM AND QUANTUM NUMBERS and THE PERIODIC SYSTEM: Kepler resonances. AllKeplerMath.

 

Shorter ..

Modern academy goes museum — unless someone can disclaim the TNED concurring experimental results as stated.

 

 

See »the whole story» from

TheNEUTRON (discovered 1932 by Chadwick).

 

 

NuclearSize

 

ConfirmingThe71:

m15

RELATED PHYSICS AND MATHEMATICS

Experimentally measured — laser spectroscopic data  (LaserSpectREF)

CONFIRMING THE 71%r0 DEUTERON RADIUS

Laser experimentation cannot sense the atomic nucleus gravity circle radius — unless we have missed something: light does not connect kinetics

NOMENCLATURE

 

 

 

 

— But it would be interesting if it could ..

 

 

light does not connect kinetics — light’ liberty clause in related physics: c and v are not additive

light experimentation cannot measure SPIN gravity circles

and modern academy never had an explaining nuclear theory on that premise, what we know

 

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.

 

Because the atomic nucleus — TNED says (basic classic physics) — in its spinning force dynamics[‡]Swedish original article

hollow toroid Planck ring h=mcr fractal structure, no solid sphere-like device, see also the gravitationally deduced atomic nucleus in Planck Ring 2 — gravitation’s fundamental form: the atomic nucleus

is characterized by a central gravity circle (r) in its interaction with all mass based energy transfer processes, also ”all impacting enterprise” will refer just the gravity circle as a typical ”the nuclear radius” in all mass based measuring experiments.

 

Using LIGHT — laser technology hence — has no direct connection:

light does not feel r. But it can, at least in principle, spot the Ñ (tilde-N).

 

 

Depending on preferences ..

 

Ñ(PROTON)                = 1.9952135487r0         = 2.726 t15 M = 2.726 Fermi (conv.: fm)

gravity circle radius ...        0.502393225 r

Ñ(PROTON)                ≈ 2r0                 ≈ 2.74 t15 M   = 2.74 Fermi

r(PROTON)                  = r0                   = 1.37 t15 M   = 1.37 Fermi ¦ 1.36621366244489..

Deuteron2CON ¦ m15

r(DEUTERON)            = r0/√2              = 0.96873629 t15 M

Ñ(DEUTERON)           ≈ 2r0/√2            ≈ 1.94 t15 M   = 1.94 Fermi (conv.: fm)

gravity circle radius ...        0.517949192 r

Ñ(DEUTERON)           = 1.9641016151r0/√2   = 1.897 t15 M = 1.897 Fermi (conv.: fm)

 

RELATED:

Adding energy/mass in any case (IMPACT DETAILS) adds additional nuclear size

 

IN PRESENT (Jul2023) FREELY AVAILABLE LASER PRECISION MEASURING TEXTS ON THE SUBJECT OF ATOMIC NUCLEAR EXTENSIONS IN SPACE no information (none yet found) is given on the nuclear experimentally added impact powers:

— Searched for (for comparing values), none yet found.

 

In this case (at worst, see quote below from WORLD SCIENTIFIC)

 

1.9731/1.8970 = 1.040115973

 

some possible influence of a + 4% additional nuclear space extension is suggested.

 

Theoretically (PAMELA) inserting the Q=1e charged deuteron (mass minus 1e: 2.013553622u) accelerated through (100 MV = 0.1 GV = 1 T8 V) the energy 0.1 GeV shows the Planck equivalent end relation m/m0 = 1.0533167282:

 

That is a corresponding mass addition of more than 5%.

 

But present (Jul2023) data on nuclear size measuring details are poor — not to say completely out of sight. See also in Reservation (these days): we have no idea here in what way the actual experiments affect the actual nuclear size measurements — if at all: no available information.

 

 

 

u           the electrically accelerated velocity M/S

c            2.99792458 T8 M/S

U          accelerating voltage, Volt

Q          charge of the accelerated object, Coulomb

m0         unaccelerated rest mass of the accelerated charged body, KG

E           = UQ energy associated with the electrical acceleration

 

PLANCK EQUIVALENTS:

 

             m0/m    = √ 1 – (u/c)2  relation between the Q charged mass at rest and electrically accelerated by U

 

 

 

Table3 A44 NuclearSize2023.ods

 

Unfortunately there is at present (Jul-Aug2023) no yet found freely available HumanRightRecognition information on the magnitudes of the new popular ”laser precision measurement” standard values on the impact scene (ImpactDetails). So, we are walking in the dark here, attempting to figure out if the TNED values ARE — or are not — reasonably explaining the whole complex.

 

It should be noted that the general experimental particle acceleration energies uses (1950+) some minimum 0.1 GeV up to 10+ GeV during the following 1950+ years and decades of developed technical improvements.

 

The only available ”precision measurement” PRINCIPLE INFORMATION on the new popular laser approaches, is the — popular laser — point:

 

With a short (popular laser) pulse, practically any atom’s nucleus can expose a PLASMA — a direct removal of all its electron mass, exposing a 100% Ze charged nucleus — ideal for initiating a particle acceleration (target-beam scattering).

 

There are corresponding available Ionization Energy Tables (Wikipedia). But there is no (here yet known) actual freely available established academic text kind enough to relate what the actual nuclear size measuring technology is working on. And this domain UH is neither a forum for speculations.

 

 

It should also be  noted, that ANY TNED suggestions in modern corridors is highly annoying: »preparing to Bury». It’s best we keep The Distance ..

TNED is definitely NOT welcome in the present scientific community. No way.

— Why not:

— Embrace.

 

22Jul2023

No full access, only the Abstract:

WORLD SCIENTIFIC — Connecting Great Minds

International journal of Modern Physics ¦ Review Articles

DEUTERON RADIUS AND NUCLEAR FORCES IN FREE SPACE

— Chun Wa WONG (1994)

worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0218301394000255

Abstract

” Experimental knowledge and theoretical understanding of the deuteron matter radius are reviewed.”,

” An experimental value of

 

rm(exp) = 1.9502 (20) fm

 

is found by using the 1962 Stanford data, the 1973 Monteray data and the 1981 Mainz data for the ratio of electron-deuteron to electron-proton elastic scattering cross-sections”.

 

Compare The Hammer Explanation — ”taking into account corrections for Coulomb distortion and higher moments”

”(re)analyzing the experimental data on elastic electron-deuteron scattering”

— There is definitely nothing wrong with the experiments. No way. Problems is: The Object of The Subject.

 

22Jul2023

Full PDF access:

DEUTERON EXTENSION VALUES

EXTRACTION OF THE NEUTRON CHARGE RADIUS

FROM A PRECISION CALCULATION OF THE DEUTERION STRUCTURE RADIUS

A. A. Filin et al., (5Mar2020);

p1.t:

” We present a high-accuracy calculation of the deuteron structure radius in chiral effective field theory.”,

p.4.col.1:

” The fit to data allows us to accurately extract the unknown linear combination of LECs entering the charge density operator at N4LO and thus to make a parameter-free prediction for the structure radius of the deuteron, which reads

 

rstr = 1.9731 ± 0.0013 ¦ 0.0018 fm 

 

with the individual contributions to the uncertainty given in Table 1.”,

” For the sake of completeness, we also present the results of the order-by-order calculations for rstr (in units of fm) including the truncation error from the Bayesian analysis,

 

1.9000 ± 0.40000(LO)

1.9700 ± 0.0300 (NLO)

1.9690 ± 0.0070 (N2LO)

1.9690 ± 0.0020 (N3LO)

1.9731 ± 0.0008 (N4LO)

 

It is important to keep in mind that these numbers are obtained without relying on the chiral expansion of the nucleon form factors.”,

p.4.col.2.t:

”  The result for the deuteron charge FF presented here pave the way for an accurate determination of the isoscalar nucleon FF by (re)analyzing the experimental data on elastic electron-deuteron scattering at MAMI (see e.g. Ref [55] for the new measurement of the elastic ed scattering cross section at 0.24 fm–1  ≤  Q  ≤  2.7 fm–1 at MAMI), Saclay [56] and other facilities.”.

 

See also the deuteron radius on ”high-resolution laser spectroscopy” (TNEDJul2008, NUCLEAR RADIUS PART 2):

 

Covello 2002        1.975 Fermi

Herrmann 1997     1.968 Fermi

 

On the TNED simplified raw Ñ figure Ñ(DEUTERONsize) = 1.94 Fermi the above reported

 

(re-calculated from older scattering experimentation, + some new laser spectroscopic approaches)

 

has a round 102-98% confirmation validity. Not bad from such a long distance.

 

 

This was also part of the clarifying TNED (2008) comparison (NUCLEAR RADIUS PART 2): older mass (electron) scattering experimentation — definitely based on sensing the r (ReHofstadter1956)  — successively (1990+) is replaced by the newer laser spectroscopic techniques

(no sense of r —  light does not connect kinetics). Naturally these new domains reveal (sensationally) dramatically different — new — nuclear size data. The (2000+) corridors became filled with new talented aces making new contributions to our admirable overall covering picture.

But this overview is not (in any prominent way) explicitly so clarified in the established scientific community available texts on the subject: Apparently Only a TNED based nomenclature can clarify these details. See for example the WIKIPEDIA on ”nuclear radius”— the article name does not exist anymore (it did, once upon a time ..). These days the headline reads: Charge radius. See also WikipediaDisinform.

 

ScienceDaily:

Compare a search result @Internet 22Jul2023:

Mystery: The deuteron, just like the proton, is much smaller than ..

https://www.sciencedaily.com > releases 2016 > ..

New experiment creates excitement. The new research result is actually more than a doubling of the old mystery of the proton radius: Beyond that, it can further the search for the true nature of ..

 

In modern corridors these days, based on highly precision measuring instrumentation, even a slight rumor of a blur in the tenth decimal of something whatever causes sensation in the academic quarters ..

— ».. and now we have to rebuild  all our computer rendering tech all over again .. shit .. »

 

 

But the web page does not allow access — it is blocked and dimmed down — unless consenting on cookies: not a spell on HumanRight recognition. Not one word.

THE ESTABLISHED SCIENTIFIC DICTATORSHIP IS SPREADING .. FAST .. Take Cover .. Mayday ..

— ScienceDaily and Associated is connected to a world wide spying on individual use of Internet, here having spotted an IP address NOT connected to cookies: a clear infringement on the individual privacy:

 

 

A12 UDHR10Dec1948

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

 

 

— »we have spotted that you must not look into this window». Why not? Why no access?

— »we think that the equations become more attractive if you show submission».

Or maybe

»that the asphalt gets greener and feels more comfortable to walk on ..»

— »IF YOU DO NOT CONSENT ON THIS OUR DICTATORSHIP, YOU HAVE NO ACCESS».

— »WE HAVE NO INTEREST IN SHARING LIFE — BASED ON AN OPEN PUBLIC MEETING WHERE HUMANS ARE FREE FROM SURVEILLANCE».

— »we do not approve of your human right existence here».

 

 

Here in UH we completely (and sadly) dismiss/ignore such low educated, lower than the lowest level apprehending instances, apparently intrusive, no-caring human right recognition portals — however unfortunately having grown in number @Internet the last few years. Compare especially on the level of science:

 

A27.1 UDHR10Dec1948

Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

 

HumanRight is a the only existing knowledge domain:

gravitation, electricity: heat, light, magnetism: LIFE. We. Us. The universe. For free. At no cost.

HumanRightRecognition: Reservation

— Perhaps ScienceDaily and Associated does not belong to the free and open universal scientific community?

The site is also so heavily dimmed, not scrollable at all, we can not read eventual top head line info of what the site stands for ..

— Back off — ScienceDaily and Associated.

Stop killing humanity.

 

Cookies and HumanRight have nothing in common.

No mother god loving way.

 

P1 ¦  UDHR10Dec1948:

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

 

— no cookies. Not even on my best day.

 

EVERY OTHER ANY FOREMOST CLAIM, IDEA, SUGGESTION, THOUGHT, ASSOCIATION ..

BECOMES THE PER DEFINITION OF

NOT freedom, NOT justice and NOT peace — with the certified addition THAT

 

P8 ¦  UDHR10Dec1948:

.. to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and  ..

:

EVERY INDIVIDUAL .. EVERY ORGAN OF SOCIETY .. CONSTANTLY .. 24/7 ..

— As THAT apparently is NOT the case:

— Why — if at all — does anybody wonder WHY the world is NOT at peace? Say again. Come again.

It should be the first, foremost, most visible to remind, relate, debate. 24/7.

 

YES. BUT

 

THE PRESENT WORLD BUSINESS ENTERPRISE APPARENTLY DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT. HumanRight recognition.

 

No way. Not at all. Not a hint. Not a sound. Not a spell. Not one  word: it does not exist.

 

 

NUCLEARradius ¦ Compare WIKIPEDIA 2023

 

FromN3m20ToN3m15: Jul2023

 

From N3m20 to N3m15

 

 

  The 62% solution

NuclearSize2023.ods Table3.B1

 

RA:

T1         = 2T0[2(m0+1)+K]–1√ 2m0A[2 + K]   ; RA = [2R/(2[m+1]+K)] · √ 2mA[2 + K] ¦ TNEDbegin1993

m0         = m

A                 = mass number A

R           = r0 the proton radius preference (1.37 Fermi)

K           = (2/√3)–1 ¦  [cos(180/N)]–1–1 in PREFIXxSIN = cos60° = √ 3/4 = 2√3;  1/2√3 – 1 = (√4/3) – 1 = (2/√3) – 1

 

As exposed in the Toroid Nuclear Derivation result complex

 

•   Independent of the terms T0Ka02m0A the general toroid morphology is derived

•   Dn T1 = 0 = d(T1)/d(a1)

¦ a01 ¦ R RA (TNEDbegin1993) denotes toroid’s N3-lamel’s first sub ring’s ½ ring thickness

THE N=3 TNED DEDUCTION COMPLEX ONLY HANDLES THE FIRST TWO TOROID LEVELS:

top spin and the transverse first sub spin, the decisive corresponding angular momentum zero sum

THE ATOM CONSUMES NO ENERGY IN ITS EXISTING MECHANICS: all moments, spins and charges end up on a zero sum:

•   for all nuclei with mass numbers greater than A=1 (a0 unknown);

 

 see iDivR  ¦ i1/R = K = (2/√3)–1

 

 

•   certifying in explicit that IT’S MATH holds perfectly for all atomic nuclides in the TNED deducing complex of related physics and mathematics and as far as valid in the real world — or not at all.

 

RA:

T1         = 2T0[2(m0+1)+K]–1√ 2m0A[2 + K]   ; RA = [2R/(2[m+1]+K)] · √ 2mA[2 + K] ¦ TNEDbegin1993

m0         = m

A                 = mass number A

 

m015:

FromN3m20ToN3m15

Calculating the m factor

So, given these premises — the RA equation with N=3 — we are invited to iterate the already (The Deuteron Secret) separately crystallized A=2 Deuteron radius T1 = r0·1/√2:

 

 

 

The entire operation relies on the A=1  mathematical merging fusion

2 J=angular momentum protons

mωr2 + mωr2 – (m→γ) = 2[m–Δm]ω([r–Δr]/√2)2

proton  +  proton                          =  deuteron

or the possible (J changes, the angular velocity ω and the r/√2 is conserved)

mωr2 + mωr2 – (m→γ) = 2[m–Δm]ωr/√2)2

Δm/m :

The fusing energy work = 1.52me ¦

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

The theoretical radius decrease from A=1 to A=2 on the latter’s more compact design is ideally conserved:

 

mω(r®r/√2)2 + mω(r®r/√2)2 = 2mω(r/√2)2 = mωr2 = 2mω(r2/2) = 2mωr2/2 = mωr2 see also Deuteron1CON

 

The iteration process — here directly manually (mostly the fastest ..) — takes a suggested m-value, giving resulting RA-values, which should be 1/√2 = 0.7071067812 ..

The result (after a few minutes) is

 

m0 = 15.0055535.. ¦ N3m15

A SLIGHTLY THICKER TOROID ARM than the previous original m20 — never calculated

 

That operation was never made before in this TNED history of results.

 

The N3m20 value m=20 was adopted from the first analyzing curvature works (TNEDbegin1993 ¦ analyzing curves ..): We (in UH) had no computers then, only highly appreciated scientific calculators — and conventional libraries. A very much different situation than the present (Jul2023).

 

The first (1993) suggested matching with the preferred Cube graph and its late 1900s reported (TheFollowing)

 

”found to provide consistent results”, see HOPr0

 

was: »around 20» as »a mid estimated average». As seen for the constant k

 

RA        = [1/([m+1]+K/2)] · (√ 2m[2 + K]) · RA½         ;  r = k · r0A1/2  ¦  TNEDbegin1993

k           = (√ 2m[2 + K]) · [1/([m+1]+K/2)]                    ;

 

the m=20 gives a deuteron radius 0.6229058948 of the initial proton radius reference 1.

 

 The 62% solution

 

Used to habits, the m=20 factor was buried with the following revelating details, giving further credit to the TNED deductions. Not until now (Jul2023) the Real Steel behind has been revealed. Continue in INVESTIGATING THE NEW N3m15 ORDER.

 

 

FromN3m20ToN3m15

 

ITNewN3m15: Investigating the .. NUCLEARradiusPART 2023 — Viewed in a new deduced the complex from N3m15  ¦  NuclearRadiusCurves: 

 

 

INVESTIGATING THE NEW N3m15 ORDER

THE NUCLEAR RADIUS CURVES

THE NUCLEAR RADIUS CONCEPT — as reserved for STABLE atomic nuclides only

— When it comes to nuclide sizes in general, unstable nuclei included, the TNED suggested solutions (NuclearIMPACT) only points to the different energies (mass changes) with which a nuclide’s STATE is associated — give or take. We have in this stage no specific developed mathematics on the unstable aspect — other than a primitive lever resemblance when it comes to beta unstable nuclei — and some basic particle acceleration aspects, see PAMELA. Continue in TNEDNucSizeImpact.

 

 

The original (Jul2008 — NUCLEAR RADIUS PART 2) analysis of the TNED related physics and mathematics’ deduced possible nuclear size curvature has (Jul2023) received new and sudden revealing as if before hidden (Hofstadter1956TNED ¦ Angeli2004TNED) aspects. Part of them has made the former (2008) analyze obsolete. And part of them has given the former (2008) analyze a new, deeper significant meaning.

 

COMPARING THE PROPORTIONS

 

     

 

INVESTIGATING THE NEW N3m15 ORDER

ON THE QUEST OF EVENTUALLY SHARPENING OUR INSIGHT INTO NUCLEAR SIZES — a most welcome contribution, if argumentally valid ..

 

     

 

 

The scientific community has already testified the challenging difficulties in attempting to define a reasonable functional graph for the radial extension of atomic nuclei (The Atomic Nucleus) and its associated experimental properties.

 

In this presentation, not really TNED but  a collection of experimental data (ReHofstadter1956 ¦ Angeli2004) has — with sudden edge — revealed the discovery of how to open a previously hidden book of a new potential fuel — compared with the one present in modern quarters — for bringing out alternative explanations (Deduction).

 

The graphics links above directs to the specific articles.

 

— m15: From ( FromN3m20ToN3m15) using the derived A=2 result

Derivation — fusing two A=1 — one neutron and one hydrogen atom 1H1 — to one resulting deuterium atom 1H2, A=2, using its 2×(A=1) THE DEUTERON SECRET preserved angular momentum

BASIC IDEAL FORM: mω(r→r/√2)2 + mω(r→r/√2)2 = 2mω(r/√2)2 = mωr2 — J(PROTON)=mωr2=J(DEUTERON)=2mω(r/√2)2 real mass defect 1.52me = 0.041401521%

to iterate the A=1 fusing form factor, ending on the value

m=15.0055535.. ¦ N3m15

The difference between the former approximated N3m20 and the recently more regularly derived N3m15:

 

 

 

The difference is readily visible — but here in UH we will continue using the original Windows 95 Simply3D modeled N3m20 proportions for the A=1 toroid nuclide form.

 

THE ORIGINAL 3D MODELING TOROID FORMS — SIMPLY 3D IN WINDOWS 95 — WERE ADOPTED TO THE ORIGINAL TNED DEDUCED Toroid FORM FACTOR TYPE N3m20. WITH THIS PRESENTATION Jul2023  AND ITS RENEWED DEDUCING EFFORTS — the original m20 was never calculated, only adopted as a most close match, see N3m20Deduction1993 —  THE m15 HAS APPEARED AS A MORE PRECISE CALCULATED AND RELATED FORM FACTOR PARAMETER FOR THE NEUTRON AND PROTON NUCLEAR TOROID AGGREGATURE. See details from DEDUCTION and Derivation.

 

MORE CLARIFIED FIRST NUCLEI:

 

With the help of spread sheet CalCard cells we first establish a clarifying picture of what already has been presented in TNED from the beginning (where nothing such was even known in this reference):

— The original TNED deduced (NeutronSquare, atomic mass defects) 4 first mass number nuclides:

 

 

 

 

INTRODUINGm15:

NuclearCurves

DERIVATION

Given the new premises in (DEDUCTION ¦ Derivation) directing further results (the m15 part means a slightly different basic nuclear radius curve — for test), we began introducing the new N3m15 raw toroid mass number function r = kr0 √A — for comparison into the older archives:

 

 

•   The already central Helium-4 threshold is as earlier passed on mass number 4:

•   2He4 and 1H1 (1.37) (and 0n1:s slightly smaller 1.32) has the same nuclear radius.

•   These intersection points are now preserved the violet m15 graph

 

Violet graph N3m15.

GRAPHS Unit 10pixels ¦ CubeGraph y = 4(5x)'1/3 ¦ rTOROm20 y = 4(0.44[5x]'1/2) ¦ rTOROm15 y = 4(0.5[5x]'1/2)

After the newly deduced N3m15 (Jul2023), we revisited the (Jul2008) Hofstadter (1956) pioneering electron scattering results (charge volume density values.Q/V) on his 13 different atomic nuclei, beginning to make more thorough comparisons. Then — mildly spoken — »it started to rain». See details from The Atomic Nucleus.

 

DIRECT NUCLEAR RADIUS APPLICATION — Table3 A17 NuclearSize2023.ods:

introducing m15 on

a different CubeGraph comparing approach

 

Cube and Toro original, see HOW. The ToroGraph begins from x = A = 2, the cube graph begins from 0.

—————————————————————————————————————

r0          = 1 proton radius 1.37 t15 M ¦ the first stable atomic nuclide

r           = k · r0A1/2 ToroRadius                         ;

k           = (√ 2m[2 + K])[1/([m + 1] + K/2)]    ; m = m0 = m15 = 15.0055535.. ¦ K = (2/√3)–1

             = 0.5

 

 

 

This History

Around 1993 the only precise atomic physics preference available was on the level of the worldwide McGraw-Hill’s HANDBOOK OF PHYSICS — from the local city library. And some scientific calculators. So: the adopted m-factor became set on the N3m20.

 

Continuing (Jul2023+) the testing analyses and the apparent results from the Hofstadter comparisons (HofLIST ¦ HofstadterEXPERIMENTALinTNED ¦ HofstadterTNED ¦ HofstadterTNEDapplication) the urge of finding more extensive comparing (claimed established) experimental nuclear size data became imperative.

 

In an increasingly devastating condition of finding comparing values, a continued search @Internet seemed hopeless: the term ”nuclear size” is practically (2023) no longer in use. Instead (WikipediaQuote) the term ”charge radius” appears in the general presentations. But ”charge radius” does not exist at all in the TNED deduced atomic nucleus property, only a limited surface charge electric displacement extension from the spinning nuclear center: no established data response.

 

So on the 14Aug2023 the ice suddenly broke. Scanning — during days — manually the different (modern academic hieroglyphic) texts — extremely sparse and generally not reasonable at all on illustrations — a free PDF table source Angeli2004 exposed a world experimental 799 isotopic collected ”Nuclear rms charge radii” nuclei data.

 

After some fairly interesting rough calculations, a sudden break through happened. It was, you know, like entering The Car, putting the key into the Starting Slot, turning The Key slightly forward, then experiencing this: a groovy silent spinning engine — on idle (some 900 horsepower stuff). We just sat there, listening, for a while: AngeliTNED ¦ ComparingFrame ¦ TheAtomicNucleus.

 

Exactly as predicted by TNED. It was like being born again. After 30 years of work.

— The basic results from the Hofstadter comparisons (ReHofstadter1956) DID develop the DeducingTHErZ decisive connection that made the Angeli2004 data explainable.

— And so all the collected data came to end on one and the same collective answer: TNED.

 

Continue from

TheAtomicNucleus.

 

 

ITNewN3m15 ¦ FromN3m20ToN3m15

 

MaxA: Jul2023

MaxA:

Maximum mass number

Through the further analysis following the 1933 original, a LIMIT for A appeared (most definitely around 2003 when the Neutron Square was discovered matching the experimental atomic masses in the HOP table):

TNEDAmax=300 — Lawrence Laboratory Chart: A=293max ¦

ALIMIT — the NeutronSquareSuggestion theory: 317.11385: The HeliumLine Atomic Mass Defect Delimiter ¦

 

 

THE THEORY BEHIND a principle max A is also clear (from several argumentative points):

SPIN-MASS toroid SURFACE COMPENSATION; It was already included in the first 62% toroid graph adjustment as an attempt to give a more dynamically oriented explanation (now obsolete, see from m15).

 

The most obvious (still here with no deeper explanation) is that the DYNAMICS of any SPINNING collected mass form HAS definite limits. Namely first with respect to direct electric-magnetic constructions and their respect of connectivity to the limited speed of light over distance: sooner or later the dynamics breaks (over distance).

 

 

 

 

 

As however all such texts have a tendency to be lengty (as the theory have a tendency of being unfamiliar with reality) there is a more simple approach in TNED from the Neutron Square:

TheNeutronSquare:

 

NeutronSquare details in THE NEUTRON SQUARE BREAK THROUGH

The Neutron Square explains the limits:

 

The NEUTRON SQUARE [NS] and its Elliptic equations in related physics — »breaking the ice».

HOWEVER Not mentioned in modern corridors, I’m afraid.

It was because of the remarkable NS-results UH was introduced @Internet on Aug2008.

 

 

The Neutron Square (NS) and its Very close to experimentally measured atomic masses counterpart, advices a maximum A of 317 (or close to exact 300). It is calculated from a suggested NS-connection that all A=60+ nuclides — especially the radioactive ones — must have the ability to emit Helium-4 nuclides in their decays. And, the Neutron Square says, that such a dynamical feature cannot pass beyond the (calculated) HeliumLine limit  the illustrated orange He4 top line

(it marks the atomic mass defect in PREFIXxSIN 6 + 12cos45° = 6 + 12/√2 = 14.48528137 — HOP/CODATA compared value 14.4834105).

 

See details (MaxA) in

ALIMIT

the NeutronSquareSuggestion theory: 317.11385: The HeliumLine Atomic Mass Defect Delimiter

 

THE extensive 3179 nuclide chart COMPARING BERKELEY NUCLIDE DATA (Audi et al., 2003) shows at most A=293 on 118Ui293

(as illustrated below, from mass number 60 and up)

 

  THE NUCLIDE CHART’S LIMIT

THE BERKELEY DATA TABLED AND DIAGRAMMED IN OpenOffice Calculus

COMPARING BERKELEY NUCLIDE DATA  ¦  Audi et al., 2003

— shows at most A=293 on 118Ui293.

 

Continue in

TNEDNucSizeImpact.

 

 

MaxA ¦ ITNewN3m15 ¦ FromN3m20ToN3m15

 

DATA2008:

The WholePicture ¦ plusCUBEgraph

NuclearCurves

 

The collected data points:

THE Jul2008 COLLECTED DATA

Nuclear size partly collected data 1955-2003

DATA

The horizontal scaled 2008 sparsely (1955-2003) collected data (KAPLAN DATA ¦ NuclideRadiiPart2) have here been recalculated. The former 2008 investigated collection did only refer a straight no isotopic A=1-209 massnumber scale. The present (Jul-Aug2023) rescaled version includes the more complete all stable isotopic nuceli A=1-209 from 1H1 to 83Bi209. That is with the atomic nuclear charge or atomic number (Z) included.

 

 

GravityForce: Data2008

Why does not the students in present academic corridors and quarters recognize Planck constant — general text books science —

h = 6.62559 t34 JS = J(fundamental universal angular momentum) = h = mNc0rN = c0 × n[mr/n = (F/a)r/n = Fr/an = E/an, n→∞]

as A The One and Only fundamental cosmic universal expression of the fundamental atomic nucleus, the neutron:

m gravitation  c0  electricity/charge/magnetism  r spin gravity circle radius: 1.0086652u  ×   2.99792458 T8 M/S  ×  1.3196610608 t15 M = h ; u = m(C12)/12 = 1.66033 t27 KG. Why — What’sUp?

— There is an expression in modern quarters on the quantity h/mc=r=λ termed (also the de Broglie wave equation) the abstract ”Compton wavelength”. It is a general applicable term in describing all atomic (nuclear) particle associated fractions, giving these a definition in terms of a wavelength (λ, lambda). However the Wikipedia article (22Aug2023) on Compton wavelength to exemplify, has no explicit mentioning or wording of the neutron. It has no such general established recognition.

— In related physics the PlanckRING the neutron h = mcr is the whole of it, always was the whole of it, and there is nothing more to add to it when it comes to the related fundamentals of physics.

 

 

KAPLAN        1955¦1962:

REACTIONS INDUCED BY PROTONS AND ALPHA-PARTICLES ¦ TABLE 16—5 ¦ NUCLEAR RADII FROM NEUTRON CROSS SECTIONS AT HIGH ENERGIES ¦ p387.

HOP             (1967):

HANDBOOK OF PHYSICS, E. U. Condon, McGraw-Hill Deuteron1Con.

HERRMANN   (1997)

TOMASELLI   (2000)

OSAWA        (2001)

COVELLO      (2002)

SUZUKI        (2003)

:

The (somewhat extensive) specifications and their sources

are accounted for in the original UH section KAPLAN DATA.

These will be mentioned further here in the WholePicture.

 

 

The above collected data are projected together with other collected results (Aug2023) in the more comprehensive WholePicture.

 

Continue in TNEDNucSizeImpact.

Details handle the differennt aspects on nuclear radius and size.

 

 

NuclearRadiusCurves ¦ FromN3m20ToN3m15

 

DEDUCTION: 18Jul2023

 — from TNEDbegin1993+ ¦ TheNEUTRON — basic primary science history ¦ CHARGE DENSITY DISTRIBUTION ¦ A1A2specifications

 

BEFORE — apart from the N=3 factor — we know anything at all about the TNED toroid form factors (relation between 1:st and second fractal level toroid rings based on the atom’s internal zero angular momentum J0K + 3J1K = 0) a DERIVATION as below from N=3 solves — really — the entire problem of the N3 toroid A>1 aggregature relative form factor complex: same proportions for all nuclides from mass number 2 and up. From there, a further ITERATION is needed to solve the actual A=1 (the neutron/proton) toroid form factor (m=b/a).

 

DETERMINING THE EQUATION FOR CALCULATING THE GRAVITY CIRCLE RADIUS  r(t)  OF THE TNED DEDUCED ATOMIC NUCLEUS

— gravitation’s fundamental form: gravitation has no particle constituents. No mother god loving way. Not even on my best day.

mathematical — all based on The Planck Constant h = mcr ¦ Kepler momentum K = vr times mass ¦ angular momentum — RingMassSpin

DEDUCTION OF THE MOST MATHEMATICALLY COMPACT POSSIBLE toroidal ATOMIC NUCLEUS

.. unless the reader has other suggestions .. we haven’t seen your version yet ..

 

See also the original Swedish edition in KÄRNRADIERNA GENOM PLANCKRINGEN.

This part aspires to tighten the focus and compression of the details — »we leave no one behind».

ToroDIM: Deduction

R                                    = 1                                                                       ;

i                                     = aK =1/2(1 +[m+1]/K ) ¦  a = 1/2(K + m+1) ¦ m(A=1) = 15.0055535 ¦ m(A=2) = 48½–5 = 1.9282032303

i                                     = 1/2(1  +  [m+1]/[(2/√3) – 1])                       ;

i(A=1)                           = 0.0047864513                                                 ;

i(A>1)                            = 0.0358983849                                                 ;

t(A=1)                           = 0.5023932257                                                 ;

t(A>1)                            = 0.5125450346                                                 ;

Ñ(A=1)                          = 1.9952135487 = 2(1 = r = t) – i                      ;

 

Ñ(A>1)                          = 1.9641016151 = 2(1 = r = t) – i                     ;

                                      ¦   r0 × 1.388829571 deuteron outer extension ..

Top spin toroid surface            = A = 2π(a + b + i) · 2π(a + b) = (2π)2(a + b + i)(a + b) = (2π)2(R+i)(R) = (2π)2(R2+Ri)

TOROID RING surface          = A = 2π(a) · 2π(b) = (2π)2(ab) ¦ R = a+b        ;

Toroid top spin volume            = V = π(a+b)2 · 2π(t) = 2t(π[a+b])2    ¦

 

 m = b/a

 

A0          = (2π)2a0b0   ¦   (b+a)/a = R/a = (K+2) = b/a + 1 ¦  R/a – 1 = b/a = m ¦ b = a b/a = a m  ¦  b/a = K+1 = m

             =  (2π)2a02m0

A1          = A0 · A = A0 + A0 + A0 + A0 + .. the resulting aggregate equals the sum of the individual toroid ring body surfaces

             = (2π)2a02m0 · A

             = (2π)2a12m1                              ;

a02m0A  = a12m1                                      ; the general toroid radius function: see complete in TrefFINAL

m1         = m0A(a0/a1)2                             ; [ 1 ] ¦ a12 = m0m1Aa02 ¦ a1 = (m0m1)1/2a0A1/2 = k · a0A1/2  ¦ r = k · r0A1/2

—

i0           = a0K                                         ; K(polygonianNumbers) = [cos(180/N)]–1–1 in PREFIXxSIN ¦ N=3 ; K=C–1–1=(2/√3)–1

i1           = a1K                                         ;

T1         = i1 + 2(b+a)                             ; the resulting toroid outer rim radius — summing distances radially

             = i1 + 2(ma+a)

             = i1 + 2a(m+1)                          ; n = m+1

             = a1K + 2a1(m1+1)                    ;  m+1 = K+2 = (b+a)/a = b/a + 1 ;

             = a1K + 2a1[m0A(a0/a1)2 + 1]

             = a1K + 2[m0A(a0)2/a1+ a1]       ; the basic toroid radius function before any derivative operation:

             = a1K + 2[a1 + a02m0A/a1]         ; RA = rAK + 2(rA + r2mA/rA) ¦ TNEDbegin1993

GRAPH: y = x + 2(x + 1/x)         :

Derivation: ToroDIM

Integrals, differentials and derivatives basics in related mathematics

FORMLAWS

Independent of the terms Ka02m0A we can DERIVATE extract OUT the resulting toroid (T1) form: Where the toroid greatest extension (T1) is the absolute most compressed on a minimum by

Dn T1   = 0                                                          ; guaranteed and so attested same for all massnumbers >1

             = d(T1)/d(a1) giving us

(T1)’     = Dn    a1K + 2[a1 + a02m0A/a1] ;

             =             K  + 2[1  – a02m0A/a12]           ;

             =             K  + 2  – 2a02m0A/a12             ;

             = 0                                                          ; tightest most narrow and compressed possible form:

GRAPH: y = 1 + 2(1 – 1/x²)                 :

 

    

 

K+2      = 2a02m0A/a12                            ;

a12         = 2a02m0A/(K +2)                      ; continuing from the derivative result

—

m1         = m0A(a0/a1)2

             = m0A(a0)2/[2a02m0A/(K +2)]

             = (K + 2)/2                                ;  2m1 = K + 2 ;

             = 1 + K/2                                   ;

m1 + 1   = 2 + K/2                                   ; n

—

T1         = i1     + 2a1(n1)                         ; T1 = R  the resulting torid outer top spin radius

T1         = a1K + 2a1(n1)                         ;

T1         = a1[K + 2(n1)]                         ;

T1         = a1[K + 2m1 + 2]                    ;

T1         = a1[K + 2(1 + K/2) + 2]        ;

T1         = a1[K + 2 + K + 2]                 ;

T1         = a1[2K + 2 + 2]                      ; the partially final A>1 toroid nuclei expression:

T1         = 2a1[K + 2 ]                            ; R/R = 2(2 + K)  ¦  = 2(2 + (2/√3) – 1) = 2(1 + 2/√3) = 4.309401077 = (–3/2 + √3)–1

SOME OF THE BASIC SPECIFIC FORM FACTOR DETAILS CAN BE DETERMINED DIRECTLY AFTER THIS DERIVATION RESULT, BEFORE WE EVEN KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE EXPLICIT FORM FACTORS IN THE A>1 BASIC AGGREGATURE — APART FROM THE CENTRAL N=3 — this will define the [BASIC] general morphology of the atomic nucleus for all the cases where the mass number A is greater than 1:

 

 see iDivR  ¦ i1/R = K = (2/√3)–1

r = i+(R–i)/2 = i+(R–Rk)/2 = Rk+R(1–k)/2 = Rk+R/2–Rk/2 = Rk/2 + R/2 = R(k+1)/2  gravity circle: 0.517949192R for A>1 ¦ k = 7/2 –2√3 = i/R  ¦  R = 1 ¦  A >1

R/R = k = 4.30.. = (–3/2 + √3)–1 ¦ R = R/k ¦  b/a = m ¦

a = (R–i)/2 – R = (1 – i/R)/2R – R = (1 – i/R)/2R – R/k = 1/4   ;

b = (R–i)/2 = (1–i/R)/2R = 0.4820508076                                  ;

m = b/a = 1.9282032303 = 2(1 – [7/2 – 2√3]) = 2 – 7 + √48 = –5 + √48 ; m ≈ 2 ¦ A>1

 

T1         = 2(2a02m0A/[K + 2])½[K + 2]

T1         = 2a0(2m0A/[K + 2])½[K  + 2]

T1         = 2a0√ 2m0A[2 + K]                  ; m here is a form factor, no mass connection, see ToroDIM

—

T0         →   a0                                         ;

T0         = i0     + 2a0(n0)                         ;

T0         = a0K  + 2a0(n0)                        ;

T0         = a0[K  + 2(n0)]                        ;

T0         = a0[K  + 2(m0+1)]                  ;

a0          = T0/[K  + 2(m0+1)]                ;

T1         = 2a0√ 2m0A[2 + K]                  ;

T1         = 2(T0/[2(m0+1)+ K])√ 2m0A[2 + K]

T1         = 2T0[2(m0+1)+K]–1√ 2m0A[2 + K]   ; RA = [2R/(2[m+1]+K)] · √ 2mA[2 + K] ¦ TNEDbegin1993

THE FINAL END SOLUTION

————————————————————————————————————

A            mass number  — number of summing A=1 elements

T0         the A=1 element’s top spin radius

K          (polygonianNumbers) = [cos(180/N)]–1 – 1 in PREFIXxSIN ¦ N=3; K=(2/√3)–1

m0         the A=1 element’s form factor ¦  b/a = m — not yet here determined

T1         the resulting toroid top spinning outer radius from the A sum of T0 A=1 individuals

ToroRadius: Derivation                                                                                                                                               —

the fully defined final toroid radius function for all A>1:

RA         = [2R/(2[m+1]+K)] · √ 2mA[2 + K] ¦ TNEDbegin1993 ¦ RA = T1

             = [2R/(2[m+1]+K)] · (√ 2m[2 + K]) · √ A         ;

             = [2R/(2[m+1]+K)] · (√ 2m[2 + K]) · A½          ;

             = R · [2/(2[m+1]+K)] · (√ 2m[2 + K]) · A½       ;

             = R · [1/([m+1]+K/2)] · (√ 2m[2 + K]) · A½      ;

             = [1/([m+1]+K/2)] · (√ 2m[2 + K]) · RA½         ;  r = k · r0√A  ¦  TNEDbegin1993

k           = (√ 2m[2 + K]) · [1/([m+1]+K/2)]                    ;  the value of the k-factor for A>1 = ½

 

SO THE FINAL QUEST CAME TO RELY ON A SOLUTION FOR: m

 

 

In the 1993 original works, we solved this by using the traditional (HOPr0) Cube Graph r=r0A^1/3. Testing — iterating — an approximate midpoint intersection between that curve ”found to provide consistent results” and the above deduced RA = [2R/(2[m+1]+K)] · √ 2mA[2 + K] for different m-values, the m=20 was adopted — never directly calculated at that time.

   In this treatise (Jul2023) we have chosen a somewhat different approach — directly mathematically iterating »a final exact match» consistent m-value (m=15), FromN3m20toN3m15 from TheDeuteronSecret :

 

              mω(r)2 + mω(r)2 = 2mω(r→r/√2)2 = mωr2 = 2mω(r/√2)2 = 2mω(r)2 ¦  1H2 = 1H1 + 1H1 [ – (m→γ) ] ¦ ideally, omitting the small mass defect (m→γ) 0.041401521%

 

Explain: With an already finished Derived A>1 — a safe first secure A=2 — basic form factor given toroid aggregature, it is clear that it is (exothermally) fused from two A=1 aggregates — beginning from a given Dmax — certifying the fusion is spontaneous. That is: exothermal: energy is released through the fusion work taken from the aggregate mass with no impact input. The angular momentum (J=mvr) for the A=1 aggregate is J=mωr² (v=2πr/t=2πf ·r; vr = ωr²). So adding two A=1 aggregates results in a The Derived A=2 form factor aggregate — where the central angular velocity factor ω is guaranteed to be preserved as a universal constant: The sum of all forces and moments in the atom is 0, TNED says. No nuclear rotational (spin) energy is added or removed when two or several atomic nuclei are united or split : ω is conserved under all circumstances, as originating from (PlanckRING1) the Planck constant h=mcr, the neutron, the fundamental form for mass: gravitation (PlanckRING2).

   Adding the two A=1 for a resulting A=2 hence on the simplest : mωr² + mωr² = 2mω(r→r/√2)² = mωr² (TheDeuteronSecret): Ideally the same J but on different masses (m) and gravity circle radius (r). Result: The R-factor for A=2 becomes the simplest r0/√2 = 71%r0.

   Investigating the sources (HOPr01967) on the Deuteron radius, revealed a possible verification of a corresponding 77% proton radius (r0). See Deuteron1CON. And so (1993+), the first (preliminary) confirmation of the principally correct TNED deductions were attested — or at least: definitely not rejected.

   See also THE PROTON RADIUS and the later (2003) appearing NEUTRON SQUARE explaining the atomic masses concordant with experimental measures.

   With the so calculated R(A=2) as a 71%(A=1) gravity circle radius aggregature, we now (Jul2023, ToroidRadius) directly could iterate a corresponding m-value in the derived basic nuclear radius expression

THEkFactor:

r           = k · r0A1/2  ¦  r = 1/√2, r0 = 1

with

k           = (√ 2m[2 + K]) · [1/([m+1]+K/2)]

on a

A           = 2

resulting in

m         = 15.0055535.. possibly a periodic decimal .0055535005553500.. = 15 + 55535/9999999

 

  The 62% solution

NuclearSize2023.ods Table3.B1

K                       = (polygonianNumbers) → = [cos(180/N)]–1–1 in PREFIXxSIN ¦ N=3 ; K =C–1–1 = (2/√3) – 1

k        = (2·15.0055535[2 + K])½ · [1/([15.0055535 + 1] + K/2)]

          = ½

          = 0.499999999992283.. 0.5 with ten decimals

The more precise m-value would be 15.0055534994651 with a 15 decimal k = 0.500000000000000

 

In the 1993 works with m=20 adoption the k factor = 0.44..

VERIFICATION OF THE (A=2) 71% AGGREGATURE: see ConfirmingThe71.

 

 

Description, regular:

The final »ten billion dollar question»:

HOW CAN WE POSSIBLY SOLVE FOR m?

— What is m in A=1?

 

OUR BENCHMARK was:

•   SUMMING a number of A (mass number) A=1 toroid elements based on a N=3 (How?) toroid aggregature with definite and equal top spinning toroid SURFACE areas, gives a resulting single A>1 toroid defining the summed toroid areas: A · AreaA1 = AreaA>1.

•   The mathematics part of the derivative operation has left no doubt that the resulting AreaA>1 has the mathematically smallest and most compact toroid surface area morphology at all possible in physics.

 

ANSWER:

— Equal J = mωr2 — for the first possible toroidal fusion on an A=2 ?

 

See further answer in detail from DEUTERON 2con: the found answer.

 

We continue here in using the acquired results.

— So, having received the Deuteron Secret Answer: what do we do with it?

 

We use it to ITERATE m for A=1 — unless the reader knows how to extract m from the

 

We still don’t know m ..

k           = (√ 2m[2 + K])[1/([m + 1] + K/2)] ¦ K = (2/√3) – 1 = 0.1547005384

             = (√ 2m[2 + K])[1/(m + 1 + K/2)]

             = (√ 2m[2 + K])[1/(m + [2 + K]/2)]

             = 2(√ 2m[2 + K])[1/(2m + [2 + K])]

             = 2(√ 2m)[(√[2 + K])/(2m + [2 + K])]

 

We did not have this following approach from the original TNED works. It has come along with time and experience, in our steady attempt to deepen the clarity of the complex — if at all:

 

REFLECT.

Roughly (1993+ ¦ i.e., 1994+, Windows 3.1) to now (Jul2023) a 30 year frequent use of computer programs (and programming) in this author’s reference, has greatly enhanced the possibility of NAVIGATING through the many STRUCTURAL issues connection atomic and nuclear physics. At the TNEDbegin time 1993, NONE of these features were at the table, only (highly appreciated) Scientific (programmable) Calculators:

— 1993 HAD a completely different REALM of daily MIND reality than today 2023.

   Test that (only for a week for comparison): no mobile, no cookies, no electronic surveillance. No Internet. No computer. No treatment as a tagged cattle. »You would freak out, unless already familiar». Today 2023 The World is a PRISON in comparison. Constantly 24/7 pushing, yapping and biting on The Individual, sucking its mind out to oblivion: no human right mentioning. Not one word. Not a sound. Not a hint. No access. Say again.

 

TODAY 18Jul2023

♦   We will find a new — definitely sharper — approach to the nuclear radii function complex,

— along with already presented basic experimental data from established particle experimental quarters ..

 

 

Continue on

From N3m20 to N3m15 ..

a more precise TNED presentation on nuclear radius

 

 

DEDUCTION

 

iDivR: 18Jul2023

COMPLEMENTARY A>1 factors

 

A>1:

i1/R:

—

T1         = 2a1[K + 2 ]               ;

T1         = 2a1[K + 2 ]               ; R/R = 2(2 + K)  ¦  = 2(2 + (2/√3) – 1) = 2(1 + 2/√3) = 4.309401077 = (–3/2 + √3)–1

T1         = 2[a1K + 2a1 ]            ;

T1         = 2[i1 + 2a1 ]               ;

T1/2      = i1 + 2a1                      ; R/2 = r + 2R ;  r = R/2 – 2R ;  r/R = (R/2 – 2R)/R = (1/2 – 2R/R) ;

R/R       = (–3/2 + √3)–1              ;

r/R        = 1/2 – 2R/R

             = 1/2 – 2(–3/2 + √3)

             = 1/2 – (–3 + 2√3)

             = 1/2 + 3 – 2√3

             = 1/2 + 6/2 – 2√3

             = 7/2 – 2√3                  

             = 0.035898384             ;

             = i1/R

—

i1/R:

—

 

 see iDivR  ¦ i1/R = K

 

T1/2      = i1 + 2a1                      ;

i1           = T1/2 – 2a1                  ;

i1/a1      = (T1/2 – 2a1)/a1           ; r/R = (R/2 – 2R)/R ;

r/R        = (R/2 – 2R)/R              ;

             = R/2R – 2                    ;

             = (½)R/R – 2                 ;

             = (½)(–3/2 + √3)–1 – 2 ;

             = (–3 + 2√3)–1 – 2         ;

             = 0.154700538             ;

             = i1/R

             = (3 + 2√3)–1                 ;

             = (2/√3) – 1                   ;

             = K with N=3                .

—

The gravity circle — A>1:

—

t            = (R – i)/2 + i               ;

t/R        = (1 – i/R)/2 + i/R         ;

             = (1 – [7/2 – 2√3])/2 + [7/2 – 2√3]

             = 0.5179491924

             = (1 – 7/2 + 2√3)/2 + 7/2 – 2√3

             = (2/2 – 7/2 + 2√3)/2 + 7/2 – 2√3

             = (2/4 – 7/4 + √3) + 7/2 – 2√3

             = –5/4 + √3 + 7/2 – 2√3

             = –5/4 + 14/4 – √3

             = 9/4 – √3

 

iDivR

 

CHARGE DENSITY DISTRIBUTION: CCD ¦ TheTNEDHofstadterMassBooster 

 

Reference article

TNED DEDUCED TOROID MATHEMATICS FOR CALCULATING THE VALUES

THE AMOUNT OF TOP TOROID VOLUME SPACE THE ACTUAL  — nuclear surface charge — 3 SUB LEVEL TOROID SPIN VOLUME ARMS OCCUPY

CHARGE DENSITY DISTRIBUTION

FOR AN IDEAL SPHERE THE SURFACE RELATION = 1 — » no inner spaces »

 

A = 1¦Z=1:

b/a        = m ~ 15           ; m =  15.0055535..

 

 see iDivR  ¦ i1/R = K = (2/√3)–1

T=R      = 1                    ; = r0

R–i       = 2(a+b)           ; (R–i)/2 = b; b/a = m =(R–i)/2a ¦ A=2 ¦ = 1.9282032303  

i/R        = 7/2 – 2√3                   ;  A > 1

A = 1:

i/a         = K                                ; = (2/√3)–1 ¦ N=3 

R           = 2i + 2b+2a                 ;

R/a        = 2i/a + 2b/a+2a/a        ;

R/a        = 2i/a + 2b/a+2             ;

R/a        = 2K + 2m+2                ;

R/a        = 2(K + m+1)               ;

a           = R/2(K + m+1)           ; R=1: a = 0.0309401077

i            = aK                              ;

             = R·K/2(K + m+1)       ; m = 15.0055535

i/R        = K/2(K + m+1)           ; R=1 ;

             = 1/2(1 +[m+1]/K )

             = 0.0047864513           ; i15

             = i15                             ; A=1¦N3m15

i            = Ri15                           ;

 

r = i+(R–i)/2 = i+(R–Rk)/2 = Rk+R(1–k)/2 = Rk+R/2–Rk/2 = Rk/2 + R/2 = R(k+1)/2  gravity circle: 0.502393225R for A=1 ¦ k = 0.0047864513 = i/R

 

A = 1;

 

R–i       = 2(a+b)                       ;

             = R – Ri15

             = R(1 – i15)                  ;

a + b     = R(1 – i15)/2               ;

b           = 15a                             ; = ma ¦ ab = ma2

a + b     = a + 15a                      ;  a + ma = a(1+m) = an ; n = 16.0055535

a + b    = a(1+m)                      ; 16a → (m+1)a

a + b    = R(1 – i15)/2               ; a(1+m)

a           = R(1 – i15)/32             ; a=(a+b)/(1+m) ¦ a = R(1 – i15) / 2(1+m = n)

             = 0.0310896324           ; R = 1

b           = 0.4663444857 ¦ m=15      ; b = 0.466517142 ¦ m = 15.0055535

toroVOLUME(S)¦1/3 A=1:

 

 

S(V)     = πa2 · 2πb                    ;    the one ring volume

             = 2π2a2b                        ; = 0.0089007893 ¦ m = 15.0055535 ¦ a = 0.0310896324 ¦ b = 0.466517142

 

toroVOLUME(T):

T(V)     = π(b+a)2 · 2π[ r = R(i/R + 1)/2 = b + a + i = t ]        

             = π(b+a)2 · 2πr             ; r = R(k+1)/2 = R(i/R + 1)/2 = 0.5023932257

             = 2πr π(b+a)2               ;

             = 2r π2(b+a)2                ; = 2.4555347472

relation(T/S)¦A=1:

V(T/S)  = 2r π2(b+a)2 / 3(2π2a2b)

             = r (b+a)2 / 3a2b           ; a+b = a(1+m)

             = r a2(1+m)2 / 3a2b       ; m = 15.0055535

             = r (1+m)2 / 3b             ; b = ma = 0.466517142

             = 91.9594379934

relation(T/S)¦A=2:

             = 3.0709696301

 

IF THE NUCLEAR RADIUS WOULD BE THE SAME FOR BOTH ENTITIES, THE RELATION WOULD YIELD (A=1)/(A=2) = 92/3 = 31.

Including the  smaller 1/√2 A=2 nuclear size, the relation would yield √2(A=1)/(A=2) = 42.3.

 

--------------

The corresponding surface toroid relations:

 

toroRingSurface(S)¦1/3 A=1:

S(Ar)    = 2πa · 2πb                   ; a = 0.0310896324 ¦ b = 0.466517142

             = (2π)2ab                       ;   

             = 0.5725889067           ;

 

toroSURFACE(T):

T(Ar)    = 2π(b+a) · 2π(r = R(i/R + 1)/2)          

             = 2π(b+a) · 2πr            ; r = R(k+1)/2 = R(i/R + 1)/2 = 0.5023932257

             = (2π)2r (b+a)               ; = 9.8693782873

 

relation(T/S)¦A=1:

Ar(T/S) = (2π)2r (b+a) / 3(2π)2ab

             = r (b+a) / 3ab              ; a+b = a(1+m)

             = r a(1+m) / 3ab           ; m = 15.0055535

             = r (1+m) / 3b               ; b = ma = 0.466517142

             = 5.7454706576

relation(T/S)¦A=2:

             = 1.0487556322

 

--------------

 

TheTNEDHofstadterMassBooster:

OR »theTNEDvolumeReducer»

ReHofstadter1956

 

»The Volume Reducer»

THE CHARGE VOLUME DENSITY NUCLEAR ASPECT

 

THE VOLUME DECREASING ASPECT IN TNED NUCLEAR PHYSICS — AND THE RISE OF THE SURFACE TNED DEDUCED NUCLEAR PROPERTY

 

However as already noted (The TNED Nuclear MASS principle TeMAS), the type Hofstadter measuring property C/M³ charge volume density also reflects an experimentally measured object’s — the atomic nucleus — enveloping volume. As noted (TeMAS), the TNED hollow toroid fractal system, nuclear mass has nothing of the kind of such a macro cosmic nature (gravitation’s fundamental form: the atomic nucleus, beginning from Planck constant h=mcr: TheNeutron) in TNED is situated in an infinitesimally thin shell, as the hollow volume apparoaches zero with increasing fractal depth. That is: As the TNED nuclear mass is related to the three first lower toroid arms, hidden by the top spinning toroid nucleus, any way we reckon — relative the experimental volumetric features — the experiment reflects a better, more accurate, mass representation than the TNED’s first fractal level three toroid rings. Shorter: The TNED calculated Q/V on the three toroid arms as containing the entire nuclear mass  reflects a lower (Q/V) mass representation on the entire true — experimental — mass appearance than the actual (gravitationally very true) experimentally sensed; The original simple TNED calculated Q/V needs a (slight mass Q/V) boost on the Q/V-proportionality only to compensate for a (relevant) experimental closure on practical — TNED related — atomic nuclei. Or proportionally: less volume on the given mass quantity, giving TNEDoriginalQ/V a push up.

 

 

Continue on

REVISITING THE HOFSTADTER SCATTERING EXPERIEMTS 1950+.

— Atomic nuclear Charge volume density.

 

 

 

CHARGE DENSITY DISTRIBUTION

 

NuclearToroidRelations: 19Aug2023 — CHARGE DENSITY DISTRIBUTION ¦ A1A2specifications

 

 

NuclearToroidRelations — TNED basics

By mathematics principle, there is a constant relation between spherical and toroidal volumes.

— NUCLEAR PHYSICS EXPERIMENTATION IS DEPENDENT ON xyz SPACE — and thereby the use of »mass volume density»

— HOWEVER A CONCEPT NOT PRESENT IN THE TNED DEDUCED AND RELATED ATOMIC NUCLEUS:

— The Planck Ring — beginning  NUCLEARstructure  from TheNeutron :

infinite hollow toroid fractal system — ending on mass in a disappearingly thin fractal hollow toroid shell

— TNED physics has no concept of »mass volume density» in nuclear physics:

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

♦   it has no inner finitie constuents:

h = 6.62559 t34 JS = J(fundamental universal angular momentum) = h = mNc0rN = c0 × n[mr/n = (F/a)r/n = Fr/an = E/an, n→∞] in GravityForce

 

 

 

 

As is vindicated on the (ComparingFrame) TNED (rZ)²/r, its proven coherent nuclear data (Angeli2004): Several (experimentally) comparing morphological details appear in focus of interest and attention — in trying to understand the connection between the already deduced TNED physics and its suggested deeper experimental connections. The above compiled chart gives the main proportions in quest — especially on the central first two nuclides the proton (1H1) and the deuteron (1H2) — as these popular members apparently also render a high status in many present articles available @Internet on atomic nuclear physics.

 

For the (a+b), t (ToroDIM) and other designations in the illustration, see from DEDUCTION, unless already familiar.

 

See also the general presentation on the different sections of interest in

ARTICLES.

 

 

NuclearToroidRelations ¦  CHARGE DENSITY DISTRIBUTION

 

ReHofstadter1956: HofstadterEXPERIMENTALinTNED:

Hofstadter-TNED-application

 

From the UH 2008 original THE HOFSTADTER EPOCH

REVISITING THE 1950+ HOFSTADTER EXPERIMENTS

”Electron Scattering and Nuclear Structure”,

not freely accessible unless connected to an institutionF — unknown content

Robert Hofstadter’s pioneering paper from 1956, Nobel prise 1961, See Wikipedia, Robert Hofstadter (31Jul2023)

 

TESTIFYING ASSERTING AND CONFIRMING THE CORRECT PROPORTIONS OF THE TNED DEDUCED (1993+) PLANCK RING CONSTANT h=mcr N3m20¦15¦2 ATOMIC FRACTAL HOLLOW TOROID NUCLEUS

 

 

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 4He 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

 

 

 

Hofstadter’s 13 values [ HOFSTADTER SOURCE] and the Corresponding TNED values for

all the HOP-tabled stable 284 isotopic nuclei in the nuclide chart. HofLIST gives all the below illustrated details.

 

 

 

 

Given the (NuclearSize) TNED conditions on »the embarrassing thin» inner A=1 1H1 nuclear structure, the Hofstadter revealing score should reflect a (really) low volumetric identification for the 1H1 object (6%). On the more thick version from A=2 (Hofstadter’s first 2He4) the TNED form factor m=2 guarantees a much higher score (36%) . Then with same form factor nucleus, just adding to it mass and nuclear charge, the Hofstadter score should reflect a proportional increasing match. And so it shows.

 

UNDERSTANDING THE HOFSTADTER ELECTRON SCATTERING EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS 1950+,

AS SEEN FROM THE TNED VIEW

 

 

———————————————

NuclearRadiusPart2 ¦ 2008 ¦

 

If these apparently similar Q/V exponential proportions are in any deeper and provable concord, the credit of a such will inevitably lie on the account of TNED explainable nuclear physics.

 

A further TNED investigation is given here on

DEDUCING THE rZ FACTOR.

— How the (1950+) pioneering Hofstadter Q/V complex reveals the inner structural secrets of our atomic nuclear world — related.

 

 

»Hofstadter apparently is The Man».

— Already from 1956.

— This is somehow embarrassing — FIRST OBSERVED: Jul2023.

 

 

Continue on

DEDUCING THE rZ FACTOR

and the following (dramatic 14Aug2023)

ComparingFrame.

 

 

ReHofstadter1956

 

ExplainingScatteringResults: ReHofstadter1956

 

Related physics and mathematics

UNDERSTANDING THE HOFSTADTER ELECTRON SCATTERING EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

 

UNDERSTANDING THE HOFSTADTER ELECTRON SCATTERING EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS 1950+,

 AS SEEN FROM THE TNED VIEW

 

 

———————————————

NuclearRadiusPart2 ¦ 2008 ¦

 

No way the electron scattering experiment can penetrate THROUGH the inner large open toroid space, illustrated left above. No way.

 

— How can you so surely state such a thing?

— Have you seen any? IF that would be the case, this writ never happened. No way.

 

The incoming electron mass (depending on beam energy) will only have a chance of »detecting something other than soft space» if it hits more or less directly on the very high charge density narrow spinning toroid arms (Hofstadter’s 6%).

— The TNED related three toroid ring interaction is also demonstrated in another way by the Krisch group experiments 1979¦1987 on polarized spinning protons (N3m20results): same type confirmation.

 

The deuteron nucleus is not represented in Hofstadter’s results. The first A>1 TNED representative N3m2 is the 2He4 nucleus: a sudden leap in percentage score is most prominent. From the proton’s 6% to the Helium nucleus’ 36% — an apparently much more compact atomic nuclear structure has come into play.

 

 

As none of these aspects certainly were known during the 1950s, and the less is so today (2023) in modern quarters, other inducements (the nucleon theory, already at work in the Hofstadter epoch, and later [1964] the Quark theory) have ruled the academic nuclear theory out and further away from a (TNED) related physics path. Modern inducements have instead developed into the more spherically computer aided laser spectroscopy modeled modern academic ideas — where apparently the idea of a ”nuclear radius” has vanished.

 

— And that is the real tragedy in the present science community — because it is this: wrong (ComparingFrame). The experiments always lead — however not always their theoretical interpretations. There is a reason why the science community cannot pin point the atomic nucleus: TNED. Say again.

 

HofstadterSOURCE:

 

The comparing TNED charge density is given in Hofstadter’s presented values (Fig.8 in his freely available 1961 Nobel lecture) in units T19 C/cM³ (T25 C/M³). See THE HOFSTADTER EPOCH. The TNED part is as deduced (DeducingTHErZ) here in DEDUCTION and the Derivation with the additional resulting diagrams in Result, HofLIST and HofstadterTNED.

— The Hofstadter values have no explicit corresponding table in his @Internet PDF free 1961 lecture.

— The values have been transferred from the (enlarged) PDF copy of his Fig. 8, rounded on two decimals.

— The Hofstadter original (”Electron Scattering and Nuclear Structure”, 1956) @Internet is not for free — one of the most pioneering scientific works of our time.

 

Modern academic preferences do their best to keep the trash out of their buildings, safely confident that only authorized inducements get access.

   At several occasions during the TNED history process, this author has asked himself, sometimes on the verge of giving up completely: Why, at all, am I wasting time on these obvious apparent deeply cherishing suckers (Swedish: djupt glädjeskuttande tokjävlar). Only the interest as such in mathematics and physics has given a further motivation: the true love for nature, seeking the fully related answers.

 

 

AS TNED concurrences apparently prove there are no inside spinning nucleons

(the present academic idea of inside spinning spherical type protons and neutron in heavier nuclei, the proton and neutron themselves consisting of Quarks — as far from TNED it is cosmically possible to get)

in the atomic nucleus, there is neither room for aspects — ideas and theories — depending on such. No way.

The TNED-Planck constant  results apparently and clearly shows that the idea of inside spinning particles in the atomic nucleus is a fatal delusion, derived from a too primitive basic idea of physics and mathematics (EXPERIMENTAL CONFIRMATIONS). And? If someone can disclaim these statements (AllKEPLERmath), this author would very much like to be the first to show interest.

 

 

Where are the present academic charts?

Ignoring the apparently @Internet growing (again, Jul2023) not scientifically serious HumanRight essentials

”no access unless cookies consent” — not one HumanRight Recognition Word (Reservation).

:

Still not one academic presented CHART DIAGRAM of the claimed (AcademicNucSize) »more than thousand» nuclei measures on their sizes have been found @Internet — the more found TALK and FORMULA on these never visually represented »thousands of entities» on established sites.

 

Not found in text. Not in picture.

(Now searching on the third day ..).

 

FOR COMPARISON it would be enlightening to see a scientific community established chart — or a graphical curve showing the functions — along with (the growing popular modern scholar) established claims of ”precision measurements”.

— None yet found. As strange as that might be. Dazzle us.

— Compare WikipediaQuote (20Jul2023) on ”charge radius”: no map. No overviews. Poorly described. But what else was expected: nobody in modern quarters knows any of this stuff, despite the ”precision measurements” growing number of ”papers”.

 

14Aug2023:

the breakthrough

One found — Angeli2004, tabling a world wide collection of 799 isotopic nuclei on a R(fm) specification.

♦   It started to rain — nay, GUSH. See ComparingFrame: TNED explains experimental results: »we’re on».

 

 

The Hofstadter scattering results (ReHofstadter1956) is apparently a the principle morphological second experimental confirmation of TNED in UniverseHistory.

 

 

See (original in UH from Jul2008) VOLUME CHARGE DENSITY

— Hofstadter’s pioneering electron scattering experiments during the 1950s

comparing TNED N3m20 calculated values

 

But:

The first will always be the always exciting Alan D. Krisch experimental group results on spin polarized colliding  protons — how it all really began,

SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN May1979¦1Aug1987. 

 

 

Continue on

ComparingFrame.

 

 

ExplainingScatteringResults

 

HOPr0: ProtonRADIUS

 

See also the NOTE BETWEEN USING LIGHT TECHNIQUES AND MASS SCATTERING EXPERIMENTS ON TESTING NUCLEAR EXTANSIONS

THE INSTRUMENTAL EPOCH SCATTERING EXPERIMENTAL PROTON RADIUS — 1.37 Fermi

Quotes from

NUCLEAR PHYSICS section page 9–11

HANDBOOK OF PHYSICS, E. U. Condon, Second Edition 1967, McGRAW-HILL BOOK COMPANY

 

”

1. The Size of the Nuclei

 

   A variety of methods can be used to explore nuclear radii and are found to provide consistent results. The nuclear size can be estimated

(1) from the scattering cross sections of nuclei for fast neutrons (neutron wavelength λ << nuclear radius),

(2) from the energy-lifetime relationship i a decay (Sec. I, 3),

(3) from the differences of the binding energies of ”mirror nuclei”,

(4) the energy levels of mesic atoms, and

(5) from high-energy electron-diffraction experiments.

”.

The source describes the different methods in particular. As for method (3), the source says,

 

 

”

The radii obtained in this way are closely approximated by

 

             R = A1/3r0           r0 = 1.37 × 10–13 cm       (3.3)

 

This gives for the root-mean-square distance of the nucleons from their center of mass

 

             ——

             (r2)1/2 = (3/5)1/2R = 1.05 × 10–13 A1/3 cm

”.

’

Method (4):

”

This method yields the values 1.2 × 10–13 A1/3 cm for the nuclear radius, if the nucleus is assumed to be spherical and to have a uniform charge distribution. The corresponding mean-square radius of the protons can be calculated to be

             ——

             (r2)1/2 = (3/5)[1.2 × 10–13 A1/3]2 = 0.85 × 10–26 A2/3 cm2

 

This is considerably less than the value given by the preceding methods. It should be noted, however, that this method is accurate only for heavy nuclei (large Z).

”.

As these instrumental epoch (1960-1999) preferences are as reliable as the (scattering instrumental data) experimental tests accounts for, there is no other general nuclear physics reference, as we begin on nuclear physics from the lightest of all the atomic nuclei: the neutron and the (following) proton.

   Taking on the Planck constant h = mNc0rN = 6.62559 t34 JS with the HOP figures mN=1.0086652u (u=1.66033 t27 KG), c0 = 2.99792458 T8 M/S, the neutron gravity circle radius rN then accordingly has been deduced as the slightly narrower

rN = h/mNc0 = 1.3196611 t15 M ≈ 1.32 Fermi relative the slightly larger proton radius, as quoted above: 1.37 Fermi.

 

The same HOP-source writes on page 7—27 in the table of physical constants (”Nuclear radius”)

 

”

Nuclear radius R = rnA1/3           |  rn = 1.37 × 10–13 cm

”,

TABLE 1.4. ADJUSTED VALUES OF CONSTANTS (1963)

QUANTUM MECHANICS AND ATOMIC STRUCTURE s7–27

HANDBOOK OF PHYSICS, E. U. Condon, Second Edition 1967, McGRAW-HILL BOOK COMPANY

 

See also the regularly deduced foundation mathematics behind the cubic A-form in The Cube Analogy.

 

Continue on NOTElightMass.

 

HOPr0

 

NoteLightMass:

HOPr0

NOTE:

The DIFFERENCES BETWEEN USING LIGHT TECHNIQUES AND MASS SCATTERING EXPERIMENTS

as much as »a light measuring technique» possibly can spot the contour of an atomic particle ..

 

 

 

Illustrations from the Swedish original in UH Nuclear radii Part 2:

While massive objects follow kinetics action and reaction physics (gravity spin-circle mechanics),

light experimentation (»a more pronounced charge radius») on physical objects exhibits a different resulting character.

 

WHILE The instrumental epoch (1960-1999) is characterized by the traditional gravitationally-kinetically mastered scattering experimentation techniques, the newer (data epoch 2000+) nuclear extension measuring methods uses Laser Techniques. As these two expose different realms of physics

 

RELATED PHYSICS AND MATHEMATICS:

light physics does not connect kinetics:

 

•   light does not develop centrifugation properties: The Solar Eclipses Expeditions from 1919;

•   light is massless;

•   gravitation is equal to all matter, cannot be shielded from: time independent

— while on the other hand

•   light physics is unequal to all matter, can be shielded from: time dependent.

 

but these aspects are not mentioned or related in modern quarters

where it is thought that »gravitation propagates with the speed of light»

and that

»light has mass»

 

we should neither expect a meaningful comparison between the two aspects.

A more detailed description of these incongruities is given in (the Swedish original)

Nuclear radii Part 2.

 

 

Continue on

TNEDNucSizeImpact

and

TenMap.

 

 

NoteLightMass ¦ HOPr0

 

TNEDNucSizeImpact:

NuclearSIZE ¦ NuclearRADIUS

 

TNED NUCLEAR SIZE IMPACT

Situation:

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 ..

 

 

GenuineAttesting

 

 

— What is the modern theory academic formulating Problem?

TEST ANSWER (»TNED says»):

 

The modern academic formulating problem

in modern academic quarters and corridors is

The INVENTED and academically consented IDEA that

NUCLEAR CHARGE — necessary in experimental measures —

DOES CONNECT NUCLEAR SIZE.

Because the modern academic idea is that atomic nuclei consists of freely inside spinning/existing protons and neutrons in heavier nuclei — so it is natural to assume: »that a general nuclear charge property affects a general nuclear size».

 

In TNED (»the real steel practical real world physics»): it doesn’t.

The atomic nucleus is intrinsically free from inside constituing particles, TNED says.

gravitation — the atomic nucleus, the fundamental form of gravitation —

is not a particle

See detailed deduction from

TheNEUTRON.

 

 

Bottom line Situation, details below:

The inadequate modern academic advised nuclear size MEASURE DEPENDENCE on Z, TNED says, PERVERTS the 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.

— But we need more solid proof to certify the suggested inadequateness on the modern occurrences of data in the region — if at all. See further from TheAtomicNucleus.

 

:

TNEDNucSizeImpact

TNED Details:

TNED NUCLEAR SIZE IMPACT

Related physics nuclear-toroid basics — on the present (Jul2023) compiled overview

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

Toroid top spin angular velocity ω = J/mr always conserved  attesting perfect exothermal fusions:

perfect spin Synchronization [ automatic magnetic polarization on very close distances ] — guaranteed no spin losses in union,

see partly illustrated on THE FUSION LIMIT MASS — Earth’s second equation: classifying the different celestial bodies:

the gravitational pressure’s influence — body mass magnitude — on spin synchronization: body build up from Dmax :

the electron is an extended part of the atomic nucleus: the neutron decay:

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

Excited nucleus:

1. ω       = J/(m/n · rn)    ¦ n>1 ¦ ...........  nuclear radius increases ¦ the nucleus emits mass in exchange of hf-energy

NOTE:

In modern academy mass and energy are mutually transferable.

In related physics [The Energy Law — The Particle Proof: mass cannot be created] nuclear excitement [E=hf energy] is a mass-energy EXCHANGE from which the nucleus recovers, sooner or later.

 

Particle accelerated atomic mass (nuclear spectroscopy and other):

2. ω       = J/(mn · rn’)    ¦ n>1 ¦ ...........  resulting nuclear radius always increases ¦ adding lighter for heavier

the gravity circle radius — nuclear mechanical inertia — is forced to increase proportional to +m

 

NOTE related ¦ MAFEM: mass-force-exchange mechanism — PlanckEquivalents. moveQ receives mass from the accelerating system’s restQ [never experimentally examined]:

= J/(m/n · r/n’) donor ¦ energy [voltage generation] input applies to »excited nucleus» as above ¦ donor radius decreases

no mass is created, no mass is destroyed:

it is just an exchange procedure organized by induction [related COEI: conservation of energy by induction].

 

Nuclear (exothermal) fusion:

3. ω       = J/(mn · rn’)    ¦ n>1 ¦ ...........  resulting nuclear radius always increases ¦ adding lighter for heavier

 

Nuclear decay:

4. ω       = J/(m/n · r/n’) ¦ n>1 ¦ ...........  resulting nuclear radius always decreases

 

Beta-decay (neutron to hydrogen):

5. ω       = J/(m/n · rn)    ¦ n>1 ¦ ...........  resulting nuclear radius always increases

(related: see special lever analogy in Nuclear Radii  CHANGE ——  through the Electron Casting)

 

If, by any chance, statements in (earlier) UH should contradict the above stated (and related), a correction (or general clarification) is needed.

 

(some of) These (strictly theoretical) TNED figures touch already established experimental branches. In these (some decisive) the definite proofs — as we already know — are exceedingly difficult to produce: comparing measuring atomic nuclei under different conditions.

 

 

 

TNEDNucSizeImpact ¦ ImpactDetails

 

TenMap:

THE NUCLEAR MASS PRESSURE ¦ TheNuclearMASSprinciple

TNEDNucSizeImpact

ToroidTopSPINsurfaceAREA:

TAREA = 2π(t = a + b + i)r · 2π(R = a + b)r    ; r = r0½A½  from A = 2 ¦ r[A=1] = r0

 

 

TAREA = 2πt r · 2πRr                                        ;

TAREA = (2πr)2tR                                              ;

TAREA = (2πr0½A½)2tR                                      ;

TAREA = A(πr0)2tR                                             ;  A = mass number (composition of number of single nuclide — neutron-proton — quanta)

TheArgument: TenMAP  ¦  ActualArgument

TheNuclearMASSprinciple

 

The argument:  

The Argument

The limitless hollow toroid Planck Ring Fractal Structure:

the fundamental form of Gravitation: the atomic nucleus

has no rational or logic connection to the macro cosmic idea of mass volume density:

ALL TNED RELATED stable NUCLEI HAVE PRACTICALLY THE SAME MASS PRESSURE over the top spinning toroid surface only

[ from 2He4 to 83Bi209, all stable isotopes: average 237.5503456618 KG/M² with very minimum variations [ 237.854-237.677 with A from 4 to 209]  mass numbers 4 to 209

AFTER DEDUCTION AND DERIVATION AND THE SECRET OF THE DEUTERON , TNED HAS A RELATED FORM FOR THE BASIC TOROID NUCLEAR SIZE AND ITS DEFINITE RADIUS r.

TopToroidSURFACE:  TAREA = A(πr0)2tR   All TNED NUCLEAR TORO MODELS RENDERED IN WINDOWS 95 SIMPLY 3D [1995+]

 

 

Because — DEDUCTION and Derivation — the TNED nuclear toroid body has a form factor m=2 for all nuclear mass numbers A>1 different from m=15 for A=1, the first four stable nuclides have a specific nuclear size-r/form-factor-m relation apart from all the rest (280) stable isotopic nuclides — ending on 83Bi209. Taking the simple TNED top toroid surface area on the 284 HOP-table listed stable isotopic occurrences, renders the following TOROID SURFACE MASS PRESSURE diagram in KG/M²:

SurfaceMassPressure:

TheArgument

TNED deduced TOROID SURFACE MASS PRESSURE diagram in KG/M²  on all tabled available 284 stable atomic nucleus isotopic occurrences

 

 

The first 1H1 stable nuclide the proton r = r0 is followed by the second 1H2 r = r0/√2, followed by 2H3 and the 2H4 where again r = r0. So, the first three nuclides have special nuclear radius proportions related to their mass number A. Then beginning first from 2He4 and to the end of the chart, the variation in m/ToroSURFACE lies between 238.969 and 237.423 KG/M². In the diagram scale above, »practically identical».

   In modern academic quarters — no definite idea or concept of a sharp edged atomic nucleus (WikipediaQuote) — the above result is beyond any question.

 

ActualArgument:

BACKGROUND

SurfaceMassPressure

Continued from TheNuclearMASSprinciple → Toroid Fractal Example —Related physics and mathematics — TNED properties only

THE NUCLEAR MASS PRESSURE ARGUMENT ON THE IDEA OF A FUNCTION FOR NUCLEAR RADIUS

Background:

Conserved gravitational force F

 

THE ATOMIC NUCLEUS as deduced in TNED:

the toroid fractal Planck ring structure

 

F           = ma                 = m→0 · a→∞ = constant        ; conserved gravitational force F

             = Gm2/r2                                                             ;

a           = Gm/r2            = m→0 · r→0                           ; r² approaches 0 faster than r ¦  EX: r=½, ½² = 1/4 :

IF           a→∞                then also m/r2 → ∞, G a constant ; r² approaches 0 faster than m approaches 0

The TNED GRAVITATIONAL ATOMIC NUCLEUS:

m/FractalSurfaceAREA  is apparently NOT a constant — while m/r might be: m/n ÷  r/n = m/r = constant

m/FractalSurfaceAREA  is a DECREASING property in the toroid nuclear fractal system:

there is no smallest part; no smallest m, no smallest r, no smallest part

AS a→∞ and m→0 in the ring fractal system

 

IF THERE WOULD BE A FINITE m/AREA IN THE TNED DEDUCED LIMITLESS FRACTAL HOLLOW TOROID SYSTEM,

THAT if WOULD then ALSO DEFINE AN ENVELOPED VOLUME:

A DEFINITE PART.

AS THAT ALREADY IS EXCLUDED,

the Planck fractal system structure

THERE IS NO MEANING IN RELATING A MASS CONCEPT

by volume

TO THE TOROID COMPLEX

other than the top spinning toroid: THE ONLY PART THAT IS not volumetrically associated WITH THE UNDERLYING THREE real toroid form factor nuclear mass system TOROID RINGS AND THEIR FRACTAL SYSTEM.

 

The mass pressure concept — on the top toroid spinning surface only

— »Consequently» the fraction TNEDNuclearMass/TopTOROIDsurfaceAREA is practically constant 237.5KG/M² with very minimum variations [ 237.900-237.423 with A from 12 to 209] for all isotopic stable nuclei up to the limit of the stable atoms, 83Bi209 — that all taken on the TNED deduced N3 aggregature and its nuclear radius equation. See DEDUCTION and its resulting ToroidNuclearRadius.

See also the circumscribed spherical relations i NuclearToroidRelations.

 

For the quantity independent ∞, see more related in PhysicsFirst,

unless already familiar.

 

Consequence:

mass density KG/M³ in the toroid ring (Planck constant fractal structure) form surface

effective volume approaches zero as the ring fractal system deepens, excluding further hollow volumes

see simple fractal reckoning example TheNuclearMassPrinciple

increases limitless with endlessly growing n number of size-decreasing fractal rings:

 

ρ           = mn–1[Vtor=(2π)2rT2n–2rn–1]–1 ; ..................................  actual case, m&V→0 PlanckRING 2

             = m/n[(2π)2rT2/n2  ·  r/n]

             = mn3/n[(2π)2rT2  ·  r]

             = mn2/(2π)2rrT2

             = m/V                                         ;

 

If necessarily the density (rho) ρ is suggested to approach infinity

while in a = F/m

m→0 · r→0 ................  where, as noted,  r² approaches 0 faster than r ¦ EX: r=½, ½² = 1/4 ; r=1/4, r² = 1/16 ..

also V in m/V must approach 0 faster than m where both m&V  → 0,

so that the gravitational force factor (F=ma = m/n · na, a→∞)

F = ma = G(m/r)2

remains intact independent of fractal structure;

the atomic nucleus:

 

the actual nuclear mass is situated in no volume at all but in a limitless thin fractal hollow toroid shell: density approaches the quantity independent: D = (m/V)→∞

 

gravitation’s fundamental form. Related physics and mathematics — TNED.

 

Result:

The practically clarifying mathematical fractal toroid example is given in TheNuclearMASSprinciple: In related physics and mathematics (TNED) the idea of an atomic nucleus — gravitation’s fundamental form — has no mass density (KG/M³) property in itself, as a type macro cosmic weighable ball in the meaning the mass lies inside the volume: it doesn’t. There is nothing there. Instead, the mass property will lie in the (top toroid) spinning surface’s (infinitesimally) thin shell as a mass surface density property KG/M². See the SurfaceMassPressure nuclide chart diagram — definitely beyond modern academic quarters.

— And there is no way to incorporate these basics with present academic ideas, as the modern academy preferences are based on a definite denial of these premises: they will most certainly bury modern academy in its own dust.

 

 

Science History — 1800+

ALL THESE CONTRADICTIONS apparently began to appear as soon as the the awakening (1800+) modern academic idea of the type LIMITED COSMIC MASS started to play. See the related comparing mathematics in EXPERIMENTAL CONFIRMATIONS. No way. AllKeplerMath — and TheREVELATION.

 

Shorter: modern academy — apparently — never liked nature.

And this author would be happy to be proven wrong on that.

GenuineAttesting:

ActualArgument

TenMAP

ATTESTING THE GENUINITY (GENUINENESS) OF THE ARGUMENTATION

 

HOW CAN WE BE SO SURE THAT THE TNED RELATED NUCLEAR PARAMETERS HAVE A SOLID PHYSICAL CONNECTION AND TRUE FOUNDATION?

PROOF:

Planck constant h = mcr:

 

r = h/mc = 1.32 Fermi defines the Neutron gravity circle radius in related physics: TNED.

   That is the entire departure on the whole TNED history complex.

   Everything further (ProtonRADIUS) from there. That is the simple answer.

 

AS ALSO THE consequently appearing (TNED2003) NEUTRON SQUARE HAS THAT BASE, WITH THE RESULTING ELLIPTIC FUNCTIONS FROM WHERE COMPARING ATOMIC MASSES from atomic, not nuclear, mass defects APPEAR, APPARENTLY EXPOSING A SOVEREIGN TNED RESULT WITH EXPERIMENTAL MEASURES AS COMPARED TO THE MODERN ACADEMIC THEORY (the Weizsäcker equations) WHERE THE VALUES APPARENTLY DOES NOT MATCH AT ALL, the genuinity of the Planck constant neutron gravity circle should be very well established on the strongest possible physical foundation: Planck constant.

 

Then (Spectrum and Quantum  Numbers) the hydrogen's energy circle (THE PROTON RADIUS) with Planck constant gives the proton radius in the TNED deduced mathematics by

r0 = 1.37 Fermi (see equation), as also testified experimentally during the second half of the 1900s by quantity in the HOP-reference (HOPr0).

 

From there and further, see

TheAtomicNucleus.

 

 

Compare the present (2023) Situation:

 

 

COMPARE 2023 THE PRESENT SITUATION:

 

 

 

There seems to be little left of a comparing expedition with the present academic idea and its laser precision measuring results on the academia consented spinning spherical shapes inside the atomic nucleus.

 

 

 

THE COMPARING POSSIBILITIES HAS SOMEWHAT sharply DIMINISHED .. entering a more or less academic accentuated »Doll’s House Theater» .. no real steel stuff ..

 

 

The related way

The two fundamental nuclear size entities, the neutron and the proton, by the most solid preferences (h=mcr), apparently become SEQUESTERED properties in the TNED deduced related nuclear physics.

   rN and r0 (r0 from rN).

 

As also the (DERIVATION) of the Deuteron toroid aggregature is based on ONLY the N=3 factor, and nothing else, the resulting compacted toroid form property (rD=r0/√2) should equally be a conserved physical nuclear property for further testing.

 

FROM THERE, at first, the above argued extensions (TenMAP ¦ TheArgument) of the theoretical nucleus’ properties comes into question, as related.

 

 

TenMap ¦ GenuineAttesting

 

NuclearRadiusNuclearCharge: — NO NUCLEAR SURFACE CHARGE DEPENDENCY on nuclear radius — 2Aug2023

 

 

CDD

Related physics and mathematics — elementary TNED nuclear physics

The THREE TOROID RING CHARGE VOLUME

DENSITY COMPLEX

FROM Revisiting The 1956 pioneering HOFSTADTER scattering experiments

 

 

 

 

DeducingTHErZ: Jul2023 —  HofstadterEXPERIMENTALinTNED

TAUnumber —  number of ring elements in the electron Jul2010: 673 026.65  ¦  r0 ratioØ: 190 based on Hydrogen SPECTRUM deduction and The LAMB-shift — e exposes a HUM

 

Related physics and mathematics — UniverseHistory

TNED TOROID PHYSICS ONLY on A>1

(see dimensions in Charge Density Distribution):

Charge volume density:

 

 

Continuing from ReHofstadter1956

The TNED oriented atomic nuclear charge (Ze) only covers part of the nuclear top surface: it has no »nuclear size» property. The mathematics in TNED defining this condition will be our nearest object of interest in comparing with established claims on the subject.

 

The apparently most profitable in a scattering experiment — attempting to map type Nuclear Charge Density on the object as suggested in the above illustration — would be to use very small electron mass rings for bombarding the actually charged part of the nuclear surface — or just bombarding the nucleus surface as such. Because most of the top spin toroid anyway is uncharged — net zero electric displacement — the incoming electron beam will »feel nothing» at those regions. The larger the nuclear charge surface cover, the higher the scattering score. See the (HofLIST) Q/V TNED comparing Hofstadter data (ReHofstadter1956).

 

 

The Q/V complex in TNED physics — revealed and related nuclear mathematics through the pioneering Hofstadter(1956) group results

DEDUCING THE rZ FACTOR — compare WikipediaQuote

Mathematics details in Deduction — nuclear basics from TheNEUTRON and TheARGUMENT

 

 

NUCLEAR CHARGE in established academy uses its familiar ”nucleons and quarks” spherical shapes as a fundamental concept : »the atomic nucleus is a spherical entity with (Quotes) a uniformly distributed electric polarity over its surface». In TNED nuclear physics no such nature of the matters exist — except as a (very) primitive model.

   If it is insisted on, The Primitive blocks intelligence.

 

TheToroV: THErZ

TNED deduced 3 ringToroid first fractal volume:

TOROV               = 3 · 2b(πa)2(r = r0½A½)3         ; see TNED related mathematics in CDD

                          = 3 · Ψ(r0½A½)3                        ;  Ψ(psi) = 0.5947063465 = 2b(πa)2 ¦ only a coefficient value ¦ = (π/4)2(1 – 7/2 + 2√3) ¦

Table3 AB6 for A>1 ¦ ToroV Table4 colW NuclearSize2023.ods

charge volume density:

Z/V                    = Ze/TOROV                                ; e = 1.602 t19 C

                          = Ze[3 · Ψ(r0½A½)3]–1            ;  A the actual mass number

IN The 1956 HOFSTADTER’S UNITS T25 C/M³ = T19C/cM³ :

 

(1)        Q/V                                = Ze[3Ψ(r0½A½)3]–1   ; Q/V  =  Ze[3Ψ(r0½A½)3]–1 + kA  ¦ k = 0.0000000 : explained in Provision ¦  A > 1

(2)        3Ψ(r0½A½)3                  = Ze/(Q/V)                     ;

3Ψ(r0½A½)3                   = Ze/[Ze/(3Ψ[r0½A½]3)]

3Ψ(r0½A½)3                   = 3Ψ(r0½A½)3               ; ½A½ is the general TNED deduced nuclear radius form from Derivation in ToroRadius:

HERE WE CAN APPARENTLY USE reformulate IT FOR ANY ARBITRARY  rZ metric FUNCTION if

(3)        3Ψ(r0 × rZ)3                  = Ze/[Ze/(3Ψ[r0½A½]3)  +  kA]

we add a corresponding term »mass booster» kA in the original Q/V right part denominator (3Ψ[r0½A½]3) : THEN

(4)        (r0 × rZ)3                       = Ze/3Ψ[Ze/(3Ψ[r0½A½]3)  +  kA]      ;

r0 × rZ                            = (Ze/3Ψ[Ze/(3Ψ[r0½A½]3)  +  kA)])1/3

(5)        rZ                                   = (Ze/3Ψ[Ze/(3Ψ[r0½A½]3)  +  kA)])1/3/r0

Evaluation: ToroV

Ze/3Ψ[r0½A½]3              → C/M3

kA                                  → numeric, A = mass number, integers only

Ze/(3Ψ[r0½A½]3) + kA → increases the C/M³ aspect

rZ                                   → defines the total summing extent of the increased C/M3 —

the TNED nuclear charge Ze extension from the toroid well spin center — on the atomic nuclear surface

See also a more compressed version in Compressed

 

 

r                                     → r0½A½ and same as rZ if k=0

 

TheFINALrZ: TheFinal: TheBasic: Evaluation

rZ          = [Ze/( 3ΨQ/V )]1/3/r0                                        ;

rZ          = [Ze/( 3Ψ [Ze/[3Ψ(r)3] + kA])]1/3/r0                ; r = (r0½A½) ¦ ToroRADIUS

rZ          = [Ze/( 3Ψ [Ze/(3Ψ [r]3) + kA])]1/3/r0         ;

rZ          = [1/( 3Ψ [1/(3Ψ [r]3) + kA/Ze])]1/3/r0        ;

rZ          = [1/(Ψ [1/(Ψ [r]3) + 3kA/Ze])]1/3/r0           ;

rZ          = [1/([1/[r]3 + 3ΨkA/Ze])]1/3/r0                    ; Ψ(psi) = 0.5947063465 = 2b(πa)2 = (π/4)2(1 – 7/2 + 2√3)

rZ          = [1/[1/r3 + 3ΨkA/Ze]]1/3/r0                            ; k = 0.001855 T25 = 1.855 T22

rZ          = [1/r3 + 3ΨkA/Ze]–1/3/r0                                   ; 3Ψk = 0.0033095408 T25 ¦  A>1

rZ          = [1/(r0½A½)3 + 0.0033095408 T25 A/Ze]–1/3/r0

 

———————————————————————

See also a more compressed version in Compressed

 

TheProvision: Final

The particle scattering experiments 1950+ shows a possible way

IF k=0 the rZ expression would have no meaning apart from Rank1: TOROV = TOROV

But IF there would be any the sligtest an END difference on the nuclear chart (last stable element is 83Bi209) between the TNED original Q/V values and experimentally measured Q/V-values — provided both have the same general (exponential) nature, a k>0 will come into play.

Prediction: Provision

Again, IF The TNED Nuclear MASS principle holds, further discussed in TheTNEDHofstadterMassBooster, it is (here) predicted that the original TNED Q/V values SHOULD end on a lower level than the measured (Hofstadter 1956) Q/V-values (so that k>0). If not (TNED values lie higher which not is the case) the present (Aug2023) deduced and related TNED nuclear physics is really out of explaining power.

 

— Here the (1956) experimental Hofstadter complex (ReHofstadter1956) comes into play:

HofLIST:

Hofstadter’s tested nuclei are listed in the below 13 atomic families table (including a mix of naturally ocurring isotopes), reporting the Q/V-values in units T19 C/cM³ = T25 C/M³.

The following isotopic and abundance specifications are taken from the HOP Table 2.1 Mass Table. It has (occasionally) been inspected and compared with later atomic mass tables (CODATA, Lawrence Berkely) with discernible differences.

 

The Hofstadter Source gives no explicit isotopic information on the experimental objects, except for his (Fig. 8 text) mentioned ”the proton” and ”the alpha particle (4He)”. The Hofstadter experimentalists have though selected only stable, non radioactive elements where the five last in the table are the particular anisotopic atoms with only one specific mass number for 83Bi209, 79Au197, 51Sb121, 49In115 and 27Co59. The other elements in the Hofstadter list below are here mass number specified, and TNED table adopted for exact preference, from the HOP-table as the most abundant stable isotope with the following specifications:

 

The Hofstadter experimental points:

From the UH 2008 original THE HOFSTADTER EPOCH

ReHofstadter1956

— collected Hofstadter data from his 1961 Nobel Lecture, p.507 Fig. 8

comparing on original TNED Q/V values

 

ReCompiled for UH 6Aug2023

 

Table2 AO32 NuclearSize2023.ods

Evaluation2:

Eval1 ¦ HofLIST ¦ Prediction ¦ TheProvision ¦ TheFINALrZ

 

 

Given the (NuclearSize) original TNED conditions on »the embarrassing thin [»Hill-Billy»]» inner A=1 1H1 nuclear structure, the explicit Hofstadter revealing score should reflect a (really) low volumetric identification for the 1H1 object. And so it does: 6%. On the more thick version from A=2 (Hofstadter’s first 2He4) the TNED form factor m=2 guarantees a much higher score. So it is: 36% . Then, continuing towards the 83Bi209 stable nuclei chart end with same m=2 form factor nucleus, just adding to it mass and nuclear charge, the Hofstadter score should reflect a proportional increasing match. And so it does — almost, except on the four last atom families: The Hofstadter values are in excess: they show more than the max 100% possible.

 

 

As clearly as the TNED end 83Bi209 Q/V value 0.77 is lower than the Hofstadter’s 1.08, the above TNED provisional argument by principle is verified, certifying a k>0.

 

 

(Rank1) Ze/(3Ψ[r0½A½]3) + kA   → with k>0 will increase the original TNED C/M³ aspect (»reduced volume aspect»), attesting the special TNED nuclear physical aspects on the earlier discussed

The TNED Nuclear MASS principle ¦ TheTNEDHofstadterMassBooster

 

Result: Eval2

TNEDnuclearCharge: 6Aug2023

 

 

Table2 AO29 NuclearSize2023.ods

 

The  k illustrated numerical value is given in T25 units (mathching the Q/V unit exponent T25 for C/M³ = Hofstadter’s T19 C/cM³)

WITH A k=0 NO TNED rZ WOULD POSSIBLY EXIST

 

The k=0.001855 addition provides a first approximation for a relevant further test of TNED — as a (THE) true source to the Hofstadter results.

 

The resulting coverage (»Hofstadter score», red) — on the TNED suggested account (HofstadterTNED):

 

(Our five fingers belong to one and the same hand; the hand has no finger constituents: modern academic thinking and ideation reflects a primitive on

»the atomic nucleus has SPHERICAL FINITE inside spinning constituents»:

»gravitation consists of spinning particles»: The conditions were better year 1311).

 

HofstadterTNED:  HofLIST ¦  Result  ¦ TheAdopted: TheBasic

ReHofstadter1956 ¦ ChargeDensityDistribution ¦ NoNucleons ¦ NoStatistics ¦ rZapplication50Sn

 

HofstadterTNED:

 

Iconic diagrams: Black: THE TNED NUCLEUS’ THREE SECOND FRACTAL RINGS EXTRACTED AND SEEN FROM ABOVE/BELOW. Red: Hofstadter experimental group score [1956].

 

The Hofstadter score reflects an expected low volumetric identification for the A=1 1H1 object (6%). On the more thick version from A=2 (Hofstadter’s first 2He4) the TNED form factor m=2 guarantees a much higher score (36%) . Then with the same form factor nucleus, just adding to it mass and nuclear charge, the Hofstadter score reflects a proportional increasing match. So far, the TNED/Hofstadter results apparently match.

TheTNEDrZCHART:

HofstadterTNED

THE TNED CALCULATED rZ STABLE NUCLIDE CHART

  rZ has nothing to do with a particle radius property — it is all about nuclear ±e surface structure extension (electric displacement) ¦ DeducingTHErZ

  rZ extension from the nuclear toroid spin axis never exceeds the value of the nuclear gravity circle radius r . For Ñ see GravityCircleRadius.

  rZ extension begins high from 1H1 with 99.99973718%r, 2He3 with 99.98%r with a first low on 1H2 with 69.33%r, then rising again to 2He4 with 99.96%r and decreasing again to 87.34%r on the last stable nuclide 86Bi209. See graph rrZresult below.

 

For r0, see PROTONradius (1.37 Fermi) from NEUTRONradius (1.32 Fermi) from Planck constant .

The diagram/figure/table contains 284 stable nuclides.

The white vertical blanks are the radioactive/unstable 43Technetium and 61Promethium.

A  the mass number — ends on A=209 the stable isotopic nuclide chart as below with 86Bi209.

Z  the atom number, same as the number of electron charges associated with the atom’s nucleus.

e  the fundamental electron charge quantum 1.602 t19 C.

r0  the Proton radius —  see also HOPr0

k  see Provision

 

 

The above accounted TNED results (Deducing The rZ) leave no room for the present (popular) idea of ”charge radiua” — other than resembling a flipped spinning flat coint in space, featuring an enveloping VOLUME — with associated ”precision measurements”: The nuclear charge physical property (electric displacement) is a surface extension. It has no what soever connectivity to a type charge spherical (or spheroid) ball. See also the corresponding isotopic chart on the TNED related nuclear surface mass pressure (KG/M²) in TheArgumente.

 

 

 A1A2spec.

 

Could the scientific community have sought this out already in the 1950s?   Maybe, yes — if the attitude towards nature have had a slight different course; deducing instead of inventing. Compare on SPECTRUM AND QUANTUM NUMBERS — TNED compares established ideas: apparently much richer. James Bradley discovered the first proof of light’s gravitational dependency already 1725 (published 1729, Bradley’s Aberration). But nobody apparently did understand its value. And today (Aug2023) seems not to have rendered any the slightest a more favourable position either in modern academic corridors.

 

TNEDcomparingHofstadter1956Result:  ¦ rrZresult: TheTNEDrZCHART ¦ NuclearCurves

DeducingTHErZ

 

The metric r(Z) data in the above presented graph does not connect to TNED nuclear size. Not in any way. In TNED, rZ is only the nuclear surface extension from the nuclear spin center axis of the TNED based electric displacement in the nuclear structure, which defines the TNED physics property surface nuclear charge (Ze). See also further clarifications on NCB II, unless already familiar.

 

Aug2023: NOT REALLY MUCH AVAILABLE EXPERIMENTAL DATA TO COMPARE ON A REASONABLE EXPERIMENTAL MEASURING EXPEDITION ON THE NUCLEAR EXTENSION IN SPACE — but the more so on the charge (volume) desnity, see ReHofstadter1956:

 

———————————————

DeducingTHErZ ¦ ToroRadius ¦ r0

 

Now (at last 13Aug2023) TNED also receives a plausible explanation to why — on Earth and in the Heavens — it IS so universally recognized experimentally particle physics intrinsically difficult to measure the physical extension — size — of the atomic nucleus. At first: using ELECTRON MASS ELEMENTS (the pioneering Hofstadter group results 1950+) seems to be the most profitable. The electron mass elements, TNED says, are the only directly small enough available particle (Planck constant fractal) rings to directly (electrically) interact with the charged part rZ of the nucleus. The rest of the nuclear body — TNED says — apparently has no direct sensing of such a probing particle element (other than »arbitrarily»). However then also at the cost of not really sensing any SIZE on light — smaller — nuclei as also the rZ is minimal on small nuclei certifying a »low score on light nuclei». The score grows higher with larger nuclei — exactly the principle Hofstadter experimental results, also according to the Hofstadter/TNED evaluation (Charge volume Density C/M³).

SEIG:

SCATTERING EXPERIMENTS IN GENERAL

Comparing on heavier nuclei — with a neutron probe: TNED physics results only

 

 

With a left rough 6 times larger nuclear body then the right neutron nucleus, noting the general large — perfectly neutral, TNED suggests — electrically neutral toroid form, the only reasonable sensing sensation between the two parties will rely on their (close) magnetic fields. The neutron has a negative nuclear magnetic moment, all other nuclei have a positive ditto. Unless familiar with a strict way to read the scattering data on other formations than assumed spherical or spheroidal the data »goes wild». No direct information will be available — on neutron scattering experiments either. One way to straighten up the bad odds, would be to — unconditionally — measure only on spin polarized nuclear objects. That would offer a better chance to — any way — confirm or reject the TNED suggested results. Compare the Krisch group results.

— IN THAT SENSE the (present) available data on »measured nuclear extension in space» might not be as valuable as was originally believed in TNED (2008).

— The TNED N3m20¦15¦2 deduced atomic nucleus also — in a way. explains why. and how, modern academy is (still) feasting on the so called Quark Theory: the inside three balls believed to be spinning around in the neutron and the proton, constituting the entire academic morphological atomic nuclear mechanics. That would be: »modern academy discouraged its ability to recognize TNED as The Solution, by inventing more spectacular scenarios named Quarks».

— Illustration: If the spin directions nuclear spin axes aligned are the same, there are only two possible parallel pacing outcomes of a neutron scattering on another A>1 atomic nucleus. The one way in which the interacting magnetic fields repel each other. And the other way in which the neutron is attracted to the target nucleus — with corresponding following results: non mentioned, none ignored.

 

 

The (Aug2023) present academic chaos of ”precision measurements” on atomic nuclear claimed extension properties in space — compare the WikipediaQuote — would be more practically useful IF the authors to the different articles and papers could specify CONCRETE macro cosmic end METRIC VALUES —  what it is the authors are aiming at IN PRACTICAL SPACE. Because that is the results presented here in TNED. IF we have such specific claimed ”precision measured” experimentally founded data, it will be much more easy for this author to advise the embarrassing TNED stool to the crap container, rather than playing around with numbers that don’t exist.

 

— And yes. That was also the hammer on the nail. See TheAtomicNucleus;

— 14Aug2023 it became clear (found: Angeli2004 collected data):

— modern preferences never had such »metric values». No way.

 

 

Further near associated TNED related physics and mathematics articles on

 

 

TheTNEDHofstadterMassBooster, or

THE VOLUME DECREASING ASPECT IN TNED NUCLEAR PHYSICS — AND THE RISE OF THE SURFACE TNED DEDUCED NUCLEAR PROPERTY

rZ IS NOT A NUCLEAR SIZE PROPERTY (NCB II)

rZ IS A NUCLEAR SURFACE PROPERTY (NCB II)

rZ apparently exposes The TNED deduced electric displacement nuclear charge Ze extension from spin center on the toroid top spin surface

 

Basic TNED nuclear physics (TNEDbegin1993)

rZ is THE EXTENSION OF a TNED deduced and related atomic nuclei NUCLEAR CHARGE (Q) extension on/OVER A SPECIFIC NUCLEAR SURFACE πrZ² PROJECTION FOR EACH ACTUAL atomic nucleus’ CHARGE (Ze)

rZapplication50Sn — how rZ and r are calculated for comparison on a given isotopic family.

 

 

Continue on

Nuclear Size — comparing on present modern academic.

 

Below:

TNED

Nuclear Basics

with

TheELECTRONmassELEMENT.

 

 

DeducingTHErZ

 

TheELECTRONmassELEMENT:

 

Casimir effect

Observed 1947+1948

— (Knudsen layer — molecular interval) very closely lying material surfaces ”suck”: »close electron mass sharing»

After Hendrik Casimir and Dirk Polder 1948 —— see the corresponding established descriptions on Wikipedia

 

closely lying material surfaces ”suck”

 

Lamb shift 

Observed 1947, see the Yung Kuo Lim Quote

— »The Atom’s Machine Noise»: »Electron mass Humming»

After the experimentalists Lamb and Retherford

 

The TauRing

The ELECTRON mass ELEMENT — The τ-RING

TNED related physics:

the electron is not a particle

the electron is a — resonant ¦ PERIODIC SYSTEM — MASS QUANTITY

it HAS constituents

 

THE TNED RELATED ELECTRON MASS AND ITS CONNECTION TO AND SYMBIOSIS WITH THE ATOMIC NUCLEUS HAS A FURTHER DEEPER CONNECTING ARTICLE. HOWEVER AS YET  20aug2023 ONLY IN AN ORIGINAL SWEDISH EDITION. SEE The KEPLER RESONANCES TNED Deduction of THE PERIODIC SYSTEM in the 2003 MsWORKS original from THE NUCLEAR MATRIX ALGORITHM — EXPLAINING IN DETAIL HOW NUCLEUS AND ELECTRON COMMUNICATE through the corresponding Planck fractal NuclearSTRUCTURE system, AND HOW THE ENTIRE ATOMIC CHART OF ELEMENTS ARE PRODUCED THROUGH THAT SYSTEM. A translated English version is needed to make a decent presentation of the content. But a such has not yet been produced 20Aug2023. THE SUBJECT HAS CONNECTION TO THE Science HISTORY of the use of The Cube Analogy.

 

 

THE ELECTRON’S BUBBLE CHAMBER TRACKS

The TNED tau-rings explain the phenomena

 

 

First (Nov2007) from (The Energy Circle) in SPECTRUM (Hydrogen’s spectrum Quantum numbers, the fine structure of the waveforms: Comparing TNED mathematics and physics with established ideas and interpretations), the hydrogen energy circle’s radius

 

R           = h(mec0π)–1                  ; Hydrogen’s spectrum detailed deduction ¦ value with more precise decimals:

             = 7.7233434 t13 M

 

there is a most simple first approximation (The Tau Sweep) defining the electron mass in the R-ring on the theoretical number (n) of electron-mass tau-rings, completing »the R-scan» turn in the spectrum definition,

 

n           = me/mτ                          ;

             = R(2π)/τ(2r)                ;

Worst case parameters from the first deduced N3m20 toroid aggregate suggest an absolute maximum third fractal level tau ring diameter of the form 2 × [m+1] = 42, meaning no space at all for subrings: the practical value was approximated as 50: Number of Rings in e ;

             = R(2π)/(r0/50)

             = 177062.35 original, less precise decimals

             = 177596.99 more precise decimals

 

 

 

 

"The excess of widely scattered particles implied that the proton has embedded within it objects whose diameter is no more than a fiftieth that of the proton as a whole.",

SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN March 1980, The Inner Structure of the Proton, p48col.1t.

"By scattering pointlike electrons from stationary protons at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC), a group of investigators from Massachusetts Institute of Technology and SLAC obtained data showing that the proton´s constituents have a radius of less than 1/20 fermi. (One fermi is equal to 10-15 meter — approximately the radius of a proton.)",

SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN August 1987, Collisions between Spinning Protons, p35ill.b.

All seemingly TNED promoting details ..

 

 

Second (UH Jul2010) in the TNED description of the Casimir effect and the Lamb shift (the electron mass exhibits »Hum») an independent method of deducing the n-factor appeared.

 

Through a more ambitions deduction (LambTNED ¦ TNED-Lamb ¦ The TauNumber), the end result showed the value

 

n                        = 673 026.65

 

partly also compared verified (Telfer1996) on experimental results through E/h=f

testing TNED against experimental values in the Hydrogen spectrum energy levels (n):

 f (MHz)           = [E0(4/3)2/n3n]/(h × 1 T6) — TNED-Lamb table

 

In explicit that n-value is related to the TNED deduced nuclide chart’s NeutronSquare circle radius max mass number 60.

 

Taking the above mentioned hydrogen spectrum energy circle n-equation

 

n                        = R(2π)/(r0/50)

                          = τØ(2πR)/r0

 

backwards on the given n-value 673 026.65, we receive a corresponding tau ring diameter (Ø) of the order

 

τØ                     = r0n)/(2πR)

                          = (673 026.65r0)/(2πR)

                          = 189.48

                          ≈ 190

 

THE FOURTH FRACTAL LEVEL would describe that tau ring thickness — but there is no here related preference for that metric — other than a suggested fractal series from N3m15 :

15 ¦ 187.5 ¦ 2 343.75 ¦ 29 296.875 .. (× 12.5) ..

That reckoning gives us a suggested proportionality of the illustrated type below. With a three pixel wide tau ring diameter, its thickness 2 344 times less, all the 673 026 tau rings on a cylindrical row take up a 861 pixel long thin cylinder. Or shorter if more narrow.

 

When the electron mass quanta is accelerated — attracted — by a positive voltage, the tau-rings automatically adjust along a common  attracting field line cylinder by their mutual magnetic attractions through their intrinsic ring spin. That is the same principle as found on the individual turns in an electric coil, each turn attracted to its neighbor when current (spin) is on. In its natural state — each individual tau ring has its own (resonant) spin property, appearing as »a small sphere» — this electric mass is (by resonant properties — spectrum) spread out around its mother nucleus, constantly communicating a dynamic loop balance with »its mother» through her nuclear well (NeutronDecay).

Previous attempts in TNED to estimate/calculate The Tau Ring Proportions have rendered different results. This part is of 12Aug2023.

 

 

— However as stated (Jul2010): The theoretical (and established practical) details in the Casimir and Lamb properties leave some questions unanswered (CasimirREF, reported errors appear 15-17%). The TNED deduction views the theory from the deduced Planck ring fractal toroid perspective (DEDUCTION ¦ TheNEUTRON), which has no representation in modern corridors — and never will have, guaranteed.

— However, again: See the TNED application on the tau-rings in (UH Apr2006)

THE ELECTRON’S BUBBLE CHAMBER TRACKS. That type explanation has been searched for in established papers, but not found — strange as that might seem.

 

Another application in TNED on the tau-rings is found in

THE POLARIZATION EFFECT — Light’s polarization.

 

But the most astonishing real steel application is — was — the early 1925 Heisenberg-Schrödinger equations — explaining the atomic spectrum with the help of (George Gamow’s book Thirty Years that Shook Physics) ”vibrators”. It was however dismissed as a not plausible physical concept in 1927 by Heisenberg, relating to relativity argumentation. They had it all on the table — and just threw it all away. That is, TNED says, perhaps the most prominent of all the modern academic high standing successful inventions, all categories.

 

Gamow1966:

Quotes from Gamows book (”the vibrators”) — here freely translated back to the English original:

George Gamow TRETTIO ÅR SOM SKAKADE FYSIKEN Prisma 1966/68

Originalets titel: Thirty Years That Shook Physics

 

Short Background 1925+

1925 two scientists Erwin Schrödinger wave equations and Werner Heisenberg matrices presents identical solutions to the atomic spectra. Schrödinger later showed, as quoted below, that the two seemingly mathematically different approaches in fact were mathematically identical. The central Heisenberg concept as Gamow describes it (p98), were ”ett oändligt antal lineära ”virtuella” vibratorer, ’an unlimited number of linear ”virtual” vibrators’:

English (p98t):

” According to Schrödinger, the emission of a spectral line with frequency υm,n could be considered a ”cooperative result” from two vibrational functions Ψm and Ψn ¹. According to Heisenberg’s model the same spectral line was emitted by an individual vibrator which we can call Vm,n.”,

Gamow1966.

 

   The end of the whole dramatic revolutionary history was with Gamow’s own words:

English (p104t):

 

”  But despite that the quantum theory both in wave form and in matrix form gave an extraordinary good mathematical description of the atomic phenomena, it could not throw the requisite light in the dusky physics.”,

 

” The answer to these questions Heisenberg delivered in a paper published 1927.”,

GAMOW1966.

 

Relating to relativity theory, the whole physical idea of ”the vibrators” were rejected. Some exploits in modern academic history surely show more prominence than all the others.

 

The argumenting attitude around 1930

Gamow (p104-113) describes the Heisenberg arguments on rejecting the idea of physical vibrators on a following ten book pages. The central part in short, Gamow:

English (p105m):

” But Heisenberg now expressed a dissentient meaning. The statement would undoubtedly be true if [Sw. ”världsalltet”] the universe did obey the laws of classical mechanics, he pointed out, but the existence of quantum phenomena changed that situation.”,

GAMOW1966.

 

Yes. And the modern academic teaching system today (Aug2023) is of course also most famous for having explained all the cosmological details on the Heisenberg presumptions.

   Compare:

The Uncertainty Principle ¦ THE Planck structural constant: h = mcr = c×n(mr/n) = h;

EXPERIMENTAL CONFIRMATIONS ¦ AllKeplerMath.

   It is such a joy to share Earth with these eminent aces.

RelatedUncertainty: Gamow1966

The uncertainty principle — Translated from the UH Swedish original May2008:

reated physics explains

 

 

 

English:

Related physics — TNED nuclear basics

UNCERTAINTY AS AN ABSOLUTE CONCEPT OF CAUSALITY FOR PHYSICS was set up 1927 by Werner Heisenberg [FMs99sp1ö] — with the electron mass as an absolute presumed universal preference. Thereby, one aimed at that the ”classic deterministic conceivability principle” was »crushed and annihilated» (the possibility to completely predict a body’s future state from exact knowledge of its present). But taking into consideration the fact that mass (gravitation: see from Atom Nucleus Deduction) now NOT any more can be defined with the structure of matter, (TheArgument) where the electron mass constitutes the limiting form, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (λp=h) becomes no absolute such, but only the one accountable for on the electron level, analogously matter. Not mass.

   [The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is OK — however no so vastly as its inventor wanted it to]; [mass physics — TNED — in modern quarters stands unrepresented].

   See also respectively mass physics and matter physics. Thereby it never neither have existed any disregard of a ”classic deterministic conceivability principle”.

   Just an apparently deep academic yearn to get rid of adequate critique from Nature.

   Mass (gravitation) determines physics. Not matter.

 

The modern academy has all to soon and eagerly devoted itself to the unfeigned malicious pleasure of hacking the truth. The uncertainty principle is apparently a principle of measure. No philosophical foundational source: The pen draws no more fine line than it is sharpened for.

 

1925:

(p97)” Samtidigt som Schrödingers uppsats om vågmekanik publicerades i Annalen der Physik, kunde man i en annan tysk publikation, Physikalische Zeitschrift, läsa en artikel av Werner Heisenberg från Göttingens universitet som behandlade samma ämne och ledde fram till exakt samma resultat. Men de fysiker som läste uppsatserna fann till sin häpnad att de utgick från helt skilda fysikaliska förutsättningar, arbetade med helt skilda matematiska metoder och inte tycktes vara besläktade på något sätt.”

English:

” Simultaneously with Schrödinger’s paper on wave mechanics publishing in Annalen der Physik, one could in another publication, Physikalische Zeitschrift, read an article by Werner Heisenberg from Göttingen’s university which treated the same subject and led to exactly the same result. But the physicians reading the papers found to their astonishment that they emanated from completely different physical suppositions, worked with completely different mathematical methods and not seemed to be related in any way.”.

;

(p103m)” Den oväntade överensstämmelsen mellan resultat som erhållits med Schrödingers vågmekanik och Heisenbergs matrismekanik, vilka inte tycktes ha någonting gemensamt vare sig i de fysikaliska grundantagandena eller i den matematiska behandlingen, förklarades av Schrödinger i en senare uppsats. Han lyckades visa att hand vågmekanik, hur otroligt det i förstone kunde synas, var matematisk identisk med Heisenbergs matrismekanik och att man i själva verket kunde härleda dem ur varandra.”.

English:

” The unexpected agreement between results received with Schrödinger’s wave mechanics and Heisenberg’s matrix mechanics, who not seemed to have anything in common neither in the physical basic suppositions nor in the mathematical treatise, was explained by Schrödinger in a later paper. He succeeded to show that his wave mechanics, how unbelievable it might appear on a first glance, was mathematically identical with Heisenberg’s matrix mechanics, and that one really could deduce them from each other.”.

GAMOW1966.

 

Bottom line:

The ”vibrators” were dispached.

The imperative details through which the results were achieved — were Rejected.

That is definitely and absolutely, maybe the most prominent event of all possible, describing the mechanics of academic intelligence in the modern academic history of science 1800+.

 

 

So (TNED) we have at least three practical verifying domains (not to mention deducing THE PERIODIC SYSTEM on Kepler resonances) where the tau-ring definitely is well (TNED) represented: spectrum, bubble chamber tracks, polarization phenomena.

 

 

Besides these, see also the imperative TNED explaining THE NEUTRON DECAY.

And the atomic masses too (Comparing TNED/MAC ¦ TNEDnuclearChargeBasics2), where the electron is an extension of the neutron, and the mass defects (TheNeutronSquare) relates to atomic — not to the modern academic nuclear (»electron creation») — mass defect.

 

See also (Swedish original) THE CENTRAL CONTACTS

— how the atomic nucleus organizes The Mechanics in communicating with its electron mass, how ±e are ejected (and regained) from the atomic nucleus — as also Verified:

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

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

 

 

In general — impossible to deny the association:

— What is the reason for this obvious, recurring and pushing modern academic (1800+) inducement of DENYING NATURAL ASSOCIATIONS, instead INVENTING »new ideas of physics», NEVER deducing them?

Or rather, be so hastily exaltedly engaged in sensational discoveries, that their nature is not realized ..

— Why?

Compare:

EXPERIMENTAL CONFIRMATIONS: AllKeplerMath.

 

 

Continue on

NUCLEAR BASICS.

 

 

TheELECTRONmassELEMENT

 

NuclearBasics: TNEDNucSizeImpact ¦ GravityCircle ¦ N3m20m15

 

28Jul2023 TNED

 

RELATED PHYSICS AND MATHEMATICS ON ELEMENTARY NUCLEAR PHYSICS comparing (NuclearSize) on the more established ..

See also TheNEUTRON in part more detailed from Introduction, unless already familiar.

 

 

Ultimate Creation?

A simple question — to modern academic corridors (11Aug2023):

 

— Is the literal interpretation of the first text in The Old Testament the only inspired MODERN ACADEMIC source to the idea of »an ultimate creation»?

— The idea that The Universe — cosmic existence — had an ultimate beginning?

— The question seems legitimate by this simple reason:

 

Everywhere ELSE we look, there never was — cannot be related, argued on or defended, as we know of — any such suggested ultimate creation. But if the reader knows of any, especially a mathematical one, we will surrender immediately. Searched for, none found.

 

 

Basic wave meachancis. No way.

h = mcr = 6.62559 t34 JS. EnergyLaw.

See detailed comparing basics from EXPERIMENTAL CONFIRMATIONS.

 

 

 

 

It is all based on mass, charge and spin.

However never created — modern academy’s most visited nightmare in explaining and relating general cosmology.

It is like the Pythagorean Theorem: it is discovered — and forgotten .. and rediscovered. Never created. Planck constant: h=mcr.

 

THIS

 

 

(»very embarrassing», Sw., »mycket generande») VISUALIZED FORM — the TNED deduced (top spin stripped) neutron/proton first sub level fractal toroid —

 

 

is impossible in the real steel physics world, TNED says.

— Why?

— Because the only way to STOP the nuclear top spin (J0K) would have to break the entire spin and charge symmetry (J0K + NJ1K = 0) of the atomic nucleus meaning a one end solution of a total mass destruction: charge sum = 0, spin sum = 0.

— So, what is it?

— It is (N=3) the physical-mathematical necessary balancing counterpart in the Planck constant (h=mcr ¦ J=mvr, angular momentum) related (TNED) toroid fractal — defining the actual toroid nuclear top spin (ω) on the sum J0K+(N=3)J1K=0.

— So .. it really does not exist .. ?

— It does (because the nucleus can be seen as a [Planck fractal] resonance—spin structural complex vibration [on a top spin frequency of some T23 Hz]). The experimental (electron mass) scattering [Hofstadter 1950+] (and spin polarized proton collisions, Krisch experimental group 1979-1987; N3m20Results) testify that structure’s exposure:

— The higher scattering energy particle beam energy, the more of »the impossible» inner structural levels are exposed — but these cannot (by physical principle, as noted) be extracted as such — with no more than a realized total mass destruction (±e annihilation).

— That is what TNED says and explains.

 

N3m20m15:

 

 

The Atom’s force equation  FBT + FeZ =

The Atom’s force equation  FBT + FeZ =

GravityCircle ¦ The Atom’s force equation  FBT + FeZ = 0: THE CHEMICAL CONNECTION:

ALL  ATOMS SATISFYING THE BALANCE ACCOUNT FBT + FeZ = 0 ARE ATOMS DESCRIBING/defining CLOSED ELECTRIC/electronMASS FLUX SYSTEMS. THESE — hence, more than one — CORRESPOND TO AN IDEAL ELECTRIC ISOLATOR [»closed electric system, or: a MOLECULE»]: SEVERAL ATOMS CAN FORM atomic systems [»matter»] IF — AND ONLY IF — THEIR SUM DYNAMICS SATISFIES THE NAMED FBT + FeZ = 0 BALANCING ACCOUNT. IT MEANS THE ATOMS CAN SHARE ELECTRON MASSES EITHER IN 1. A COMMON CENTRAL FLUX SYSTEM VIA FBT OR IN 2. A COMMON ENERGY SHARING COMMUNITY VIA FeZ, OR 3. in any  A COMBINATION OF THESE ACCORDING TO THE chemical RANK [»rank of chemistry»]

(FBT+FeZ)1 +  (FBT+FeZ)2 + (FBT+FeZ)3 + .. + (FBT+FeZ)n = 0.  ESPECIALLY IN primary exothermic FUSION MATTERS [ Exothermal nuclear reaction/fusion law ] [ TNED K-cell heat Physics ], THE RANK BALANCE CERTIFIES THAT WE NEVER HAVE TO CARE IN EXPLICIT ON A SEPARATE ELECTRON MASS ACCOUNT ON THE DIFFERENT FUSION [ OR FISSION ] POSSIBILITIES — WHEREAS THE ELECTRON MASSES ALWAYS FOLLOW THE NUCLEAR TRANSACTIONS ON THEIR OWN BALANCING ACCOUNTS [ PERIODIC SYSTEM ]. ALL FROM THE BASIC NEUTRON. See also NeutrinoSpectrum.

 

 

The TNED related atomic nucleus more in detail from

TheNEUTRON in Introduction.

 

 

NuclearBasics

 

TEPRIS:

Summing TNED nuclear structure 29Jul2023 — TNED RELATED NUCLEARstructure

TNEDNucSizeImpact

Nuclear basics

THE FRACTAL TNED PLANCK RING STRUCTURE

 

 

On the premise of

•   Planck constant (angular momentum J=mvr; h=mcr = mNc0rN = 6.62559 t34 JS), apparently never created, impossible to destroy, and the resuming

•   mNrN neutron zero summing apparently never created atomic nucleus (the only available energy source for lighting up our universe: mass destruction, star physics)

•   ±e = 0, ±s = 0, J0K + NJ1K = 0,

the following appears by deduction, with familiarity on the basics of gravitation, electricity and magnetism.

 

THE hollow FRACTAL TOROID RING

Examining the electric and magnetic properties of a RING (or a corresponding toroid transformer) it has some IDEAL properties which we can deduce — for test — as the featuring basics of an atomic nucleus (at first the basic Planck ring constant The Neutron).

 

 

TNEDbasicPlanckRINGStructure: TEPRIS

 

———————————————

THE BUBBLE CHAMBER ELECTRON TRACKS ¦ Pair Annihilation

 

A such topmost toroid RING has a first sub fractal of smaller (±e) rings, the ring column left above, where each ring in its turn has a corresponding fractal level of the same type. And so on, endlessly with no limit (TheARGUMENT ¦ PlankRING1).

 

The ring column’s subrings as part of the main top ring’s thickness, have only one, and only one single possible physical PRINCIPLE possible way of staying conserved without being annihilated on the named premise

•   ±e = 0, ±s = 0, J0K + NJ1K = 0, right bottom part above (pair annihilation).

Namely + –  + –  + –  + –  + –   .. that  each ring’s nearest neighbor is its own negation:

•   All rings aspire to approach (and annihilate) UNLESS HAVING A SPIN, a magnetic field, allowing the rings to come close — yes. But not THAT close to annihilate:

•   The magnetic field from the ring spin (electric charge in motion, basic magnetic physics) has such mutual STRUCTURAL morphology in the toroid that IT contra acts electric attraction by a corresponding ring repulsion. Or rather, a ring attractive DAMPING effect. The attracting rings will NOT meet — in THAT constellation.

   These details are summed in the figure above:

•   It is imperative (i-figure part above) that the column rings in the toroid have the same spin direction. When they don’t (figure below right), »it’s annihilation time», right part below. Such a situation can only appear if rings of the same charge (electron and positrons) are released (The Central Contacts) from the main toroid structure — what we call THE ELECTRON MASSES. These are always given in discrete (traditionally so called and named) QUANTA: a definite portion of quantity (1e = 1.602 t19 Coulomb — The Nuclear MATRIX Algorithm, THE PERIODIC SYSTEM — HOW the elements are built).

 

TNEDnuclearChargeBasics: PART 1

TNEDnuclearChargeBasics, PART 2

TNEDbasicPlanckRINGStructure

 

THE NUCLEAR CHARGE (Z) — IN TNED

 

 

 

 

If we follow the electro-magnetic ±e ring column (hollow [ ring ] cylinder) principle (TNEDbasicPlanckRINGStructure) through the top toroid ring extension, we know that a circular sector is more narrow towards the center than the periphery (figure above); there is a slight (angular) greater space on the outside radius of the top ring.

 

The figure above:

normal matter right (+ top displacement) and its possible antimatter spouse left

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

In further analyzing the above already mentioned given electric and magnetic properties, we see the following:

 

NORMAL MATTER (right ¦ PlanckRingDimensions) inside-sector magnetic-enterprise promotes a small PUSH OUT — an electric displacement.

 

The neutron mass 1.0086652u from the electron mass 0.000548598u has 1838.6235458387 e-masses:

♦   There are plenty of opportunity to organize a small displacement exposing only a prominent few e–

— or the reverse.

 

The electric displacement

As small as it may be, this sector skew is the only here known TNED deduced structural cause of the atomic nucleus’ NUCLEAR CHARGE (Z ¦ DeducingTHErZ).

 

It has nothing at all to do with ideas of spinning or existing particles — ”charged” balls — inside the atomic nucleus (modern quarks, or separate neutrons and protons). The TNED Planck ring atomic nucleus has nothing of a such kind or nature.

 

Z has — hence — also a definite connection to a Nuclear Magnetic Moment (See Also in SPECTRUM AND QUANTUM NUMBERS on The Electron Ring’s Magnetic Moment). And as known (The decay of the neutron), the Neutron as such has a negative magnetic moment (very small electric displacement : The neutron is UNSTABLE — just precisely about to decay ..). After decay — emitting one electron mass quanta — the neutron has become a HYDROGEN ATOM. And its atomic nucleus, the so called proton, has a reported positive nuclear magnetic moment (THE NEUTRON DECAY illustrated).

 

And that would be the all of it — TNED related physics says.

 

See also further from the Swedish original in PlankRING1 and THE TWO ATOMIC PHYSICS MAIN EQUATIONS explaining all atomic behavior.

 

 

Continue on

TNEDNucSizeImpact.

— Basic explaining aspects on the nuclear size change with varying nuclear mass.

 

 

TEPRIS ¦ NuclearBasics

 

TNEDnuclearChargeBasics: PART 2 ¦ NeutronDecay:  —  4Aug2023

TNEDnuclearChargeBasics, PART 1

 

AS IT HAS BEEN UNDERSTOOD IN TNED FROM THE BEGINNING:

modern academic ideas refuse these simple basics

IN UNIVERSITY CORRIDORS, visual ideas of the atomic nucleus is strictly banned

— » .. because the size magnitude is far beyond the wavelength of physiological sight».

 

The original NEUTRON DECAY

THE NUCLEAR CHARGE RADIUS Z IN TNED

Z is related as a very small e+ electric ring displacement on the nuclear spinning surface top in the TNED deduced hollow fractal Planck ring structure;

Z has no real physical volumetric representation, but appears a such on a space spinning nucleus on instrumental inspections, suggesting a volumetric (scattering) idea of the nuclear space extension. Thereby the established misconception of the property: Charge volume density C/M³ decreases with increasing mass

taken from the lightest elements [ A=1, Z=1 ] to the heaviest stable [ A=209, A=83 ], the general (1956+) Hofstadter result (ReHofstadter1956).

 

 

Again, as the man said it himself:

 

 

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

” The alpha particle 4He 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

 

 

Conditions — attempting to unite the Hofstadter results with the general TNED physical mathematics:

 

rZ/r is not constant — r is the faster extending with growing A:

rZ/r → 0 (with increasing haste) with increasing mass number (A):

rZ/r decreases from 99.99% at 1H2 to 87.34% at 83Bi209

Compressed:

DeducingTHErZ:

 

(Q/V)0   = Ze/TORO3V                                          ; TORO3V = 3Ψ(r0½A½)3 ¦ Ψ = 2b(πa)2 = (π/4)2(1 – 7/2 + 2√3) for A>1 

             = Ze/3Ψ(r)3                                            ; r = (r0½A½) ¦ ř := (r0rZ) ¦  ř (caron-r) ¦ never further used

             = Ze/3Ψ(r0rZ)3                                       ; 3Ψ = 1.7841190395  for A>1 ¦ Table3 colAB NuclearSize2023.ods

(r0rZ)3   = Ze/3Ψ(Q/V)1                                       ;   Ψ = 0.5947063465 = (π/4)2(1 – 7/2 + 2√3) for A>1

(Q/V)1   = Ze/TORO3V + kA                                  ; k = 0.001855 T25 = 1.855 T22 approximated

             = Ze/3Ψ(r)3  +  kA                                 ;

(r0rZ)3   = Ze/3Ψ[Ze/3Ψ(r)3  +  kA]                   ;

(r0rZ)3   = 1/3Ψ[1/3Ψ(r)3  +  kA/Ze]                  ;

(r0rZ)3   = 3Ψ[1/3Ψ(r)3  +  kA/Ze]–1                  ;

r0rZ       = [3Ψ/3Ψ(r)3  +  kA/Ze]–1/3                  ;

rZ          = [3Ψ/3Ψ(r)3  +  kA/Ze]–1/3/r0              ;

rZ          = [1/(r)3  +  3ΨkA/Ze]–1/3/r0                  ;

rZ          = [1/(r0½A½)3  +  3ΨkA/Ze]–1/3/r0         ; VERchecked ¦ Ψ psi ¦ Table4 col AB AD AK  NuclearSize2023.ods

rZ/r       = [1/(r0½A½)3  +  3ΨkA/Ze]–1/3/r0r       ;

 

 

See deducting details, terms explanations, and the results from

DeducingTHErZ.

 

 

TNEDnuclearChargeBasics2

 

rZapplication50Sn: HofstadterTNEDapplication: HofstadterTNED 

 

 

 

TNED related physics and mathematics — THE ATOMIC NUCLEUS

ACADEMIC NUCLEAR ”CHARGE RADIUS”

HAS NO ATOMIC NUCLEAR SIZE CONNECTION

Related physics Atomic Nuclear charge (Z) is a nuclear surface extension property with no volumetric physical connectivity

DeducingTHErZ ¦ AngeliTNED ¦ TheAtomicNucleus ¦ TNED ¦ Angeli2004

the atomic nucleus in not a ”charged ball” —

gravitation is not a particle —

but modern academic ideas wants it to be

 

 

TNED nuclear physics only

—————————————————————

The nuclear charge Z, same as the atomic number, appears as a

top spin structural electric displacement (BackGround ¦ TheARGUMENT) organized site. It is governed only by the atomic nucleus (the atom) itself, as it organizes on its different states and moments ;

 

Beginning from a lightest, least mass isotope on a given Z with a given rZ,

 

Illustrated explanation

—————————

•   the increased isotopic mass, same Z, will increase, and

•   the rZ will follow with a larger area cover with increasing A ;

 

•   the rZ never becomes greater then the nuclear gravity radius (r) circle ;

•   The initial rZ value on the lightest isotope follows the increases of more isotopic mass.

•  The rZ factor never appears connected to an idea of a nuclear size, or any kind or sort of a contained volume.

But the measuring instruments see (Quotes) only a spinning or fast vibrating nucleus where Z is »uniformly distributed» around the nuclear — diffuse — domain — with some exotic features when tested on different levels of affected energy; More energetic penetration reveals more — exotic — structural phenomena. Compare The Krisch group results.

EXAMPLE:

Tin ¦ 50Sn A=112-124

 

 

Where — in modern quarters — can we find a simple corresponding elementary comparing example?

— Searched for. None yet found.

— It landed 14Aug2023 after persistent search from a world data collected nuclear size table Angeli2004. See from AngeliTNED.

— rZ has no nuclear size representation. It is only a (TNED nuclear toroid spin charge) surface electric displacement extension from the nuclear spin center: it has no volume. It is just as surface area covering (electric displacement, magnetic moment generating) disc measure of the actual nuclear net electric charge prominence.

IN EXPERIMENTATION apparently only part of this nuclear property is inspectable by different measuring methods.

 

 

In modern corridors no (stated or declared) definite FORM at all exists for the atomic nucleus. Not to say that THAT type is of the academic nature ”forbidden” (high school and university teaching). So only by that means: we should not even THINK about looking for »a corresponding comparing chart» in modern quarters: what we know: it does not exist — and never will.

 

— And that was also definitely confirmed on the above named 14Aug2023 found part. See the surprisingly revealed details from ComparingFrame:

— Except partly for the first pioneering experiments (Hofstadter1956 — HOPqHof1967 ¦ HOPr0) modern academy science community (apparently more clear from a rough 2000+ ¦ Angeli2004) has never had such data. No way — proven by the now apparently definitely TNED attested and confirmed rZ-relation (TheAtomicNucleus).

 

While the academic idea has its ”spinning Quarks and np-nucleons”, TNED has the decisive electric displacement in the fractal toroid ring structure, making up all the possible electro-magnetic features of the atom and its nucleus (TEPRIS).

 

So, the only hope for TNED to »shine through» — helping the lost populations into a safe harbor — is if, how and when TNED results EXPLAIN the more primitive — apparently — present academic idea. Unless successful on that mission, TNED physics and mathematics is apparently equally dead. That has been the related physics idea from the start — »we leave no one behind».

 

See associated article:

HofstadterTNED

 

 

When (in explicit) comparing rZ with r:s, we use The rZ equation, take the series of an actual isotopic group (on given Z), then calculate on (IntroN3m15) the r-equation the explicit A:s, the previous diagram for example. That is: same r:s will repeat on same mass numbers (A).

 

See also comparing modern academic present (2023) values on the two objects Neutron/Proton (ProtonRADIUS) and Deuteron (Derivation) in

NuclearSize.

 

 

rZapplication50Sn

 

TheCorruptedNucleus: 29Jul2023

TNEDnuclearChargeBasics

 

COMPARE THE PRESENT SITUATION:

 

 

 

ON THE QUEST OF A CORRUPTED NUCLEAR EXTENSION

28Jul2023 — TNED physics arguments

 

As most of the present (Jul2023) scientific community presumably already know, the present established scientific idea is that all atomic nuclei consist of freely spinning and existing neutrons and protons (Wikipedia, Nucleon ¦ Quotes). They are the so called nucleons (neutron n and hydrogen nuclei p) inside larger nuclei, where these np constituents in themselves consist of smaller particles called quark particles.

Modern academic nuclear charge

NUCLEONIC nuclear SIZE determining  ideas ..

The charismatic belief of the community exposes, as we know, that the inner nucleonic proton (p) representation determines the surface nuclear electric charge (Z ¦ TNED DeducingTHErZ), and that the sum of these inner nucleonic protons (p) and their associated nucleonic number of neutrons (n) determine the actual size (mass number A) of the actual atomic nucleus.

— »Charge determines size», modern corridors say.

2000+ with expanding laser technique ..

The present established scientific measuring technique in determining the nuclear radius (a concept not really existing any more in modern quarters, Quote), its size and extension in space, so describes a method based on nuclear charge (n+[p=Z]=A) compared against the number of (np) nucleons (A). The general idea is, or seems to be (the academic explaining texts @Internet — Reservation — are poorly represented on details) that the nuclear size, then consequently, has some (calculable) relation to (the size) of the (spherical) enveloped nucleons inside a given (n+[p=Z]=A) nucleus.

 

 

TEPRIS —— gravitation PLANCK RING 2 DEDUCTION

— the fundamental mass form, the atomic nucleus from the neutron h = mcr

— has no finite particle constituents:

gravitations is not a particle IN RELATED PHYSICS

 

In the Planck constant h=mNc0rN atomic nucleus deduced TNED (toroid nuclear electromechanical dynamics) no nuclear size- or nuclear radius determining nucleons — or even nucleons at all — exist inside the atomic nucleus:

the atomic nucleus has no inner particle structure (TheARGUMENT — gravitation is not a particle, gravitation has no inner constituents: the atomic nucleus as gravitation’s fundamental form). The atomic nucleus is an unlimited (Planck structural constant) hollow toroid fractal ring structure where no smallest finite particle exists; The Planck constant deduced TNED atomic nucleus knows of no connection between nuclear extension and nuclear surface charge. there are no inside existing nucleons.

So: As far as the TNED atom is correctly apprehended, the established academic idea of the atom and its nucleus is severely corrupted. It — hence, is of a most imperative nature to clear this quest out, as no serious mind has interest in feeding a compromising issue. The TNED arguing details are as follows.

 

 

TEPRIS

The TNED deduced atomic nucleus is a (Planck fractal toroid) structure of (±s) spinning ±e mass rings where no finite particle exists.

 

Certifying correct interpretation ..

That is: The equivalent Planck energy attesting mass destructor

E =hf = mcr/t = mc² (COEI)

certifying a nuclear mass transfer to heat and light energy

leaving no remaining mass:

 

ConfirmingThe71

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.

 

 

•   ±e = 0, ±s = 0, J0K + NJ1K = 0; charge, spin and mass gravitation reduces to zero.

•   all charge and and all spin is canceled out on ±e=0 and ±s=0,

and the mass energy is conserved by

COEI in related physics: conservation of energy by induction

•   leaving only a corresponding electric INDUCTION, transferring the previous mass-charge-spin energy to a set of corresponding vibrating atomic Planck energy frequencies (heat and light) E=hf = mcr/t = mc².

   See THE SPIN CONCEPT IN MODERN ACADEMY for comparison, unless already familiar (exemplified on the neutron decay). The different preferences does not communicate. See also in SPECTRUM AND QUANTUM NUMBERS: TNED relations apparently gives a richer, and deeper, explanation than the modern academic text books.

Proving that ..

The atomic nucleus — gravitation’s fundamental form — has in no way any nature of finite massive constituents (PASTOM, principle/principal structure of mass, related physics).

   Modern academy cannot handle that quest in any reasonable rational form. The term ”natural philosophy” in modern academy itself apparently was starved out the moment modern academy was born: 1800+. Compare such statements in scientific literature as »the death of truth» (Morris Kline 1968): ”Truth is no longer sacred”, and others.

Nuclear charge . electric displacement ...

The nuclear surface (TEPRIS) receives its surface nuclear charge structure

from a small electric displacement (DeducingTHErZ) net positive protrusive ring charge, so corresponding to the actual atomic number (Z) — and an associated nuclear magnetic moment generated by the nuclear toroid top spin (THE PERIODIC SYSTEM from the related NuclearMATRIXalgorithm: how nucleus and electron mass communicate — give or take).

 

The TNED related nuclear charge (DeducingTHErZ) from lighter to heavier nuclei is determined by how the nucleus self adjusts the electric displacement with the nucleus’ growing mass number (A).

 

By principle, this nuclear surface top structure relates to the two (neutron-proton) different basic electric displacements; The associated two first lightest nuclei, the neutral (n) neutron and the positive (p) proton. And so the entire TNED deduced toroid nuclear structure can be characterized on a specific np structure terminology (jumbo neutrons and jumbo protons, depending on nuclear state, unstable nuclei included, see the Nuclear AZ chart).

No connection nucleons to nuclear size ..

As the modern academic established idea of nuclear size is connected to the number of np nucleons in the nucleus, the whole modern academic idea also vanishes out of sight in a nucleus free from any type, sort or nature of nucleonic existence. Shorter: The deduced TNED Planck ring nuclear toroid ring structure has no modern academic np nucleonic connectivity at all.

Not much in common ..

While the established academic way has been to imagine spinning (spherically charged, Quotes) particle balls inside the actual atomic nucleus, related physics has deduced the only known available Planck constant energy equivalent (PASTOM) explaining path:

 

m = m(n→∞)–1(n→∞) = m

 

For mass to be (star physics) completely transformed to heat an light

 

•   no leftover mass

 

the fundamental form of mass

 

•   gravitation,

the atomic nucleus

— beginning from Planck constant’s Neutron h=mcr

 

needs to be founded on a (PASTOM) principle mass structure

with apparently no finite constituents:

(BackGround ¦ TheARGUMENT)

 

 

NO FINITE PARTICLES INSIDE GRAVITATION.

the atomic nucleus — beginning from the neutron — gravitation’s fundamental form has no inner constituents

 

 

Continue on

TNEDNucSizeImpact.

— Attempting to clarify how the nuclear size changes with additional nuclear mass.

 

See also on the

SurfaceMassPressure:

— all stable nuclei have essentially the same surface mass pressure quantity in KG/M² :

238. Which also holds (on another quantity) for the idea of an enveloping sphere.

A straight line throughout the entire stable isotopic nuclide chart.

 

 

TheCorruptedNucleus ¦ TEPRIS ¦ NuclearBasics

 

PAMELA:

 

Nuclear mass increase through

PARTICLE MASS ELECTRIC ACCELERATION

ref.: TNED NUCLEAR SIZE IMPACT (2) ¦ ConfirmingThe71%

 

 

u           the electrically accelerated velocity M/S

c            2.99792458 T8 M/S

U          accelerating voltage, Volt

Q          charge of the accelerated object, Coulomb

m0         unaccelerated rest mass of the accelerated charged body, KG

E           = UQ energy associated with the electrical acceleration

 

PLANCK EQUIVALENTS:

 

             m0/m    = √ 1 – (u/c)2  relation between the Q charged mass at rest and electrically accelerated by U

 

1–(u/c)² = 1/[(UQ/m0c²) + 1]   ;  m0c²(1/[1–(u/c)²] – 1) = UQ = (E) ; 

 

m0c2 = mccu = constant = E — no mass is created, no mass is destroyed  but modern academy constantly fucks with it.

The full (Swedish edition) Planck Equivalent related physics article is given in MAFEM (mass-force exchange mechanism).

 

 

 

Table3 A44 NuclearSize2023.ods

 

IN GENERAL mass scattering (1950+):

Scattering energy:          ca 0.1-10+ GeV

 

 

The difficulty in finding specified laser data on measuring nuclear size experiments, has brought this comparing article into a blocked state: no available information.

 

Evaluation .. unfinished ..

LASER SPECTROSCOPY

very hard-to-find FREE data @Internet Jul2023 — if at all — no access, many (80-90%) science web sites demand cookies consent for access, no mentioning of HumanRight recognition — private research privacy respect = zero: no access, not one word human right recognition:

 

A GROWING AMOUNT OF SCIENCE WEB SITES INTERRUPTS THE PAGE VISITOR WITH DICTATORSHIP MANNERS — NOT ONE WORD HUMAN RIGHT RECOGNITION: »if you do not consent on cookies here, you are NOT welcome here». That is apparently NOT a free open public serious scientific web site.

— I was just aiming at a strict scientific interest on visiting the site (its search-advertised different details):

— I have no interest in consenting parties: consent is no scientific subject, never was, never will be.

Stop killing humanity.

 

P8, UDHR10Dec1948

”.. to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms ..”

   Not one word. No access. Cookies. Dictatorship. Interrupted Expedition. A sucker blocks the path. Not one word human right recognition. Not a spell. Not a sound. No access.

— These »scientific web sites» maybe do not belong to the the Human Right Resolution Party. We ignore these, completely here in Universe History. No mother god loving way.

   Compare Internet from the start: totally free and open: heaven. Now: individual humans are electronically surveilled imprisoned tagged cattle. And some Aces mean that That is an improved State of Cultural Development. Oh my. »God help us». What crap.

   Claim whatever you want, in any manner you want.

 

(SHORT)PulseExcitationEnergy for activating a change to be analyzed (type, nuclear size changes):

 

”.. The laser is focused to form a plasma, which atomizes and excites samples.”,

WIKIPEDIA, Laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy [25Jul2023]

   Plasma: a complete Rip of atomic electrons: 100% ionization.

 

Except the quoted: No yet found HUMAN RIGHT RESPECTABLE FREE OPEN ACCESSIBLE source @Internet seems to explain the FUNCTION behind Laser Spectroscopy: not found.

 

A27.1, UDHR10Dec1948

Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community,

to enjoy the arts and

to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

 

Maybe ScienceDaily & Associated wants to ARGUE ON HUMAN RIGHT RECOGNITION ISSUES?

Please: do share.

— No. These educated aces apparently have no such intentions, I am positive — that would be worse than rude. The situation instead pictures a community where the established interests are NOT aware of the gravity of the situation: people just follow the main stream business enterprise trade tracks, never questioning its agenda: not one word HumanRight recognition mentioning.

— »Not our business». Not a spell. Not a sound.

 

A found exception (among others, hopefully increasing in number) is ScienceDirect (25Jul2023) — no blocked web site, no demanding cookies consent (unless we have missed something, as corrupted as Internet has become 2015+).

— Internet 2023:

stop killing humanity.

 

STOP surveillance. STOP Human Cattle Tagging. Leave MIND alone.

STOP BUSINESS TAGGING INDIVIDUALS AFTER AGE, SEX AND LANGUAGE — AND PERSONAL CHOICE.

The individual mind is free from boundaries to sex, age, interest : WE LOVE EACH OTHER INDEPENDENTLY.

STOP PUSHING THE INDIVIDUAL INTO A CATTLE SLOT.

LET — serve — THE INDIVIDUAL CHOSE FOR HIMSELF.

 

Internet after 2015¦16 has increasingly become a business dictating sewer,

constantly insulting the individual privacy, blocking, forcing, tagging, survelling.

 

 

PAMELA 

 

SummingConclusion: 21Aug2023 

TheAtomicNucleus

 

 

SUMMING CONCLUSION

 

 

SUMMING CONCLUSION (The Atomic Nucleus) — 21Aug2023

—————————————————————————————

APART FROM the first range section of 1H1 to 26Fe54 isotopic stable 63 deviating lighter isotopic stable nuclei in the AngeliTNED compiled diagram, explained in the separate paragraph below:

 

Given the 96-104% directly coherent ComparingFrame concordances

in the stable 221 remaining TNED deduced (rZ)²/r compiled AgeliTNED isotopic nuclei data 26Fe56 to 83Bi209

 

•   whereof 24 different nuclei scores a direct rounded 100%  (±0.4%)

 

compelling evidence has been given for a direct confirmation of the TNED deduced coherent expression (rZ)²/r, as based on the TNED deduced toroid nuclear form factors (DEDUCTION, Derivation)

— from (DeducingTHErZ) a primary verified (charge volume density, Q/V) TNED morphological coherence with the Hofstadter1956 pioneering results (HofstadterTNED, ReHofstadter1956).

 

AS: Angeli2004 data in 1.00 Fermi units — Blue graph ¦ 1 Fermi = 1 t15 M ¦

AT: TNED calculated (rZ)2/r in r0 = 1.37 Fermi units  — Orange graph (TheProof)

 

Table4 NuclearSize2023.ods col AS and AT

 

ITS [(rZ)²/r] associated related and deduced Planck constant (PlanckRING1, PlanckRING2) TNED hollow toroid fractal atomic nucleus and its morphologically TNED determined form factors for mass numbers A=1 and A>1, defining these named percentage coherences, are so apparently confirmed and recognized.

 

 

The first deviating section

1H1 to 26Fe54 isotopic stable 63 lighter nuclei in the AngeliTNED compiled diagram

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

Relying on the main coherent percentage data (ComparingFrame),

especially the 24 rounded 100% occasions (±0.4%),

the first lighter nuclei deviating section can only be, or better be, explained by

erroneously (not by intention) added and integrated parameters into experimental data:

♦   Established delusive and fatal ideas of the SHAPE and NATURE of the neutron (0n1), proton (1H1) and deuteron (1H2), have corrupted a basic understanding of elementary atomic nuclear physics.

— As the nuclei grows heavier (NeutronExcess), those lighter nuclei error influences decrease, and the end of the stable nuclei chart scores a 100%.

 

Some of these deviating data have, unless mistaken, positions more aligned with the TNED deduced (rZ)²/r in the beginning of the diagram (WholePicture: Kaplan 1955, Tomaselli2000, Osawa2001, Suzuki2003 and partly also HOP1967), instead of the more deviating general Angeli2004 world collected data in this region of the chart. Thereby asserting a certain genuinity of the (rZ)²/r result also in the first section.

 

It would be difficult, not to say impossible, to disclaim this TYPE of explanation — the modern academic invented, rather than deduced, atomic nuclear parameters — of the deviating first 63 stable isotopic Angeli2004 nuclei data, given the already confirmed TNED toroid nuclear coherences in the 221 remaining TNED deduced (rZ)²/r compiled AgeliTNED isotopic nuclei data 26Fe56 to 83Bi209

whereof 24 different nuclei scores a direct rounded 100%  (±0.4%).

   Meaning: The bulk of the data confirmed TNED morphology will not suffer from a smaller part of deviating data from, it better be, a general academic diffuse idea of the nature of our atomic universe that nobody in modern quarters seem to understand anyway:

— The deviations better be explained by the established science community erroneously integrated interpreted form factor ideas and “charge radius” parameters from the experimental data, that definitely have no connection to atomic nuclear physics, but rather to different experimental (modeled) methods.

 

 

The TNED toroid atomic nuclear aggregature related physics and mathematics can so evidently be understood as:

A COMPLETE underlying explanation to all the stable Angeli2004 collected experimental isotopic atomic nuclei data 1H1 to 83Bi209 — or not at all.

 

 

These are the following points by related and so asserted consequence (TheARGUMENT ¦ Background):

 

 

•   the atomic nucleus is not spherical, not even close to

— except so experimentally seen on a (fast) xyz spin

(Compare the Krisch group results 1979¦1987)

 

•   NoStatistics ¦ NoNucleons

 

•   the atomic nucleus has no whatsoever property of the nature or type (uniformly distributed, like on a ball) “charge radius”, not even close to

 

•   the academic popular (WkipediaQuote) “charge radius” type is an academic convenient spherical liquid drop model delusive invention to fit experimental data nobody in modern corridors ever did understand.

 

 

SummingConclusion ¦ PAMELA 

 

TheRESULTinSu: 23Aug2023 — SummingConclusion

 

 

THE RESULT IN SUMMATION

THE RESULT IN SUMMATION in explicit with respect (SUMMING CONCLUSION ¦ TheAtomicNucleus) to the 100% concordant values

 

 

The (Hofstadter1956¦1961-TNED2023) TNED (DeducingTHErZ) deduced  rZ atomic nuclear surface electric displacement radial (rZ) extension from the (TNEDbegin1993) TNED deduced (PlanckRING1 ¦ PlanckRING2 ¦ N3m15ToroRADIUS r) Planck fractal hollow toroid atomic nucleus' spin axis in r0 = 1.37 (NeutronGravityCircleRadius rN=h/mNc0 ¦ ProtonRADIUS 1.37) Fermi units (t15 M = 10^–15 M), is presented (the world collected extensive Angeli2004 table's “Nuclear rms charge radii” — extracted on its stable isotopic nuclei from 1H1 to 83Bi209) in a reduced form as TNED:s related  rZ×(rZ)/r = (rZ)²/r — in 1.00 Fermi units (ComparingFrame ¦ TheHammerExplanation).

 

The concurrency apparently, strangely, points to a hidden (experimentally integrated) r0 (ProtonRADIUS as deduced) Planck related fundamental constant

r0 = (rN = h/mNc0 = 1.3196610608 t15 M) × √8/(1+√3) = 1.36621 .. = 1.37 t15 M:

— »The Angeli2004 experimentally based data really exhibits units in 1.37 Fermi, and not 1.00 Fermi» (HammerExpl).

— But that has to be confirmed in explicit — from the established community of data modeling inventors themselves.

 

 

TNED — related physics and mathematics (1993+, @InternetAug2008) — presents a fully illustrated picture of the entire atomic nuclear properties and their fully related mathematics deductions (all basic experimentally observed nuclear phenomena: The Atomic Nucleus), explaining all the principle functions on the level of “classic” atomic particle physics in this UniverseHistory domain @Internet (from Aug2008) — especially the atomic masses (NeutronSquare, elliptic equations, from atomic — not nuclear as in modern quarters — mass defects: NoStatistics) as concordant with the experimentally measured quantities (HOPtable 1967, LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL LABORATORY 2003 and NIST/CODATA 2005).

 

The present scientific community on the other hand has nothing of the kind. No way. Not even close. It is at most today (Aug2023) represented by the (modern academic understandable but not defendable) fuzzy Wikipedia quote on “charge radius”,

 

” 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 understand that from the point of the established academic inducement of constantly inventing instead of deducing.

 

clarifying that any established academic The Atomic Nucleus TNED type of nuclear information is readily out of the present academic and scientific community question. Not even close (TheLIST).

 

In other shorter words, The Result:

TNED apparently collects, explains and relates experimental atomic nuclear data — on a form that WITH ESTABLISHED PREFERENCES never had any connection at all — but frequently so was claimed a position from established quarters, connecting — to a real steel practical physical atomic nucleus. Especially so in concern of the first three nuclei (0n1, 1H1 and 1H2 — DEDUCTION ¦ Derivation ¦ BackGROUND ¦ TheARGUMENT). That apparently exposes a revolutionary situation in the history of science, unless radically mistaken.

 

 

TheRESULTinSum ¦ SummingConclusion 

 

TheNeutronSquareSignificance: 28Aug2023

ProtonRADIUS — TheNeutronSquare

 

  English translated 28Aug2023 from: NUCLEAR RADII PART 2 Jul2008 Reference

 Proton radius paragon in the neutron square

THE NEUTRON SQUARE SIGNIFICANCE

  IN RELATED ATOMIC NUCLEAR PHYSICS

 

 

THE (TNED 2003 — using Windows 3.1 PaintBrush discovered, HOPtable1967 investigated)

atomic masses experimentally concordant

Comparing TNED/MAC ¦ NoStatistics ¦ DiffGraphs ¦ UeDiff

NEUTRON SQUARE PARAGONIC FORM

NeutronSquare ¦ TNEDbeginStory ¦ InSaTex

with its exquisite geometric 2D morphological connection

 

rN          = h/mNc0

= 1.3196610608 t15 M

≈ 1.32 Fermi

= 6.62559 t34 JS ÷ (1.0086652 × 1.66033 t27 KG × 2.99792458 T8 M/S)

HOPref1967 ¦

 

rP/rN     = (√8)/(1+√3)

rP/rD     = √2

rD          = rP/√2

rD/√2    = rP/2

√2/(rP/2 + √ 1–rP/2)    = (√8)/(1+√3)

NeutronSquare ¦

= √6 – √2

= 1.0352761804

= rP/rN

= √6 – rP/rD

rP/rN     = √6 – rP/rD

√6         = rP/rN + rP/rD

rP = r0  = rN(√8)/(1+√3)

= 1.36621 366244489 t15 M

≈ 1.37 Fermi

 

clearly gives solidity to the idea of a gravity center (radius re) for the Hydrogen atom's electron mass as taken through the relations of the deduced Hydrogen atom's spectrum energy circle R (the 1913 Niels Bohr atom model)

EnergyCIRCLE ¦ Spectrum ¦ HydrogenSPECTRUM ¦

R           = h/(me · c0 · π)

 

through the related/deduced/adopted/spectrally extended connection

NeutronSquare ¦

rP = r0  = (me/mN)(1/π√8 + π[1–me/mN])h/mec0π

             = 1.36621 6806510 t15 M

             ≈ 1.37 Fermi

 

That uncovered building shows us, obviously, onto further details which by natural reasons cannot be deduced from matter physics

RelatedUncertainty — Heisenberg's uncertainty principle 1927¦ MatterPhysicsANDmassPHYSICS 

and which STRUCTURAL EQUIVALENTS

eMASSgravityCenter ¦

we therefore, earlier, could not have a detailed knowledge about, not at all.

— With the help of these equivalents we can now, really unveil those atom physics' further details. Such as that Spectrum

SPECTRUM ¦

also harmonizes; Electron mass ON the Hydrogen atom's energy R-circle FROM the re-gravity point.

DeducingTHEre ¦

 

The Lever resemblance: at lever distance re outside the Hydrogen nucleus, the proton, e resides. But e as a mass quantity (me) CAN have multiple, orbital, formations. These structural equivalents, can balance the central ideal »electron gravity center 'all over the place, symmetrically ON R'»; That is a concept in mass physics, impossible to deduce in ordinary matter physics.

 

Just precisely with respect to this latter part, the atom's spectrum, that it

DeducingTHEre ¦

really appears to exist a relevant connection between matter physics' spectral basic concept (R) and a deeper lying mass based fix patterned form (rN and r0 in the neutron square), contributes perfectly clear to a deeper understanding of atom physics' general concepts: A naturally founded, on a precisely fix and timeless nature, fully deducible structural morphology (»structural mathematics»).

— No human invention. Guaranteed free from all such. No bald cuts. Just pure alive nature. The neutron square.

 

With the above unfolded it says clearly:

 

An »electron mass general gravity point» cannot possible be deduced from matter physics. That so because the electron mass in matter physics represents an indivisible quantity (e): e founds all physical measuring in the form of whole, indivisible, numbers. These numbers, integers (»functional extensions of the periodic system»), corresponds to a number of whole wavelengths oscillating in fix resonances around the corresponding energy circle's (R) equilibrium form — thereby founding every physical measuring device. Matter physics.

   Of the same reason can neither the »neutron radius change to a proton radius» be deduced from any a matter physics. That so because that deduction also entails a process:

The Zero Charged Neutron ¦ The Neutron Decay ¦

— The individual STEPS and MOMENTS, and thereby (again) the concept of a (mass) STRUCTURE with the electron mass components as the agents in delivering mass from nucleus to cover. There is no such available matter physics in the book of the universe. That domain is — hence — reserved for mass physics

TheELECTRONmassELEMENT ¦ MatterPhysicsANDmassPHYSICS  ¦

 

— WERE it now so badly assembled (MAC 1800+) that nature NOT had left a Paragonic Stone — »I hereby Testament to all you fuckups a WAY to understand ME, yes, through all times, no exception, provided willing to Dig» — on which rock cipher we could understand the functions — namely as found: the neutron square explaining the experimental measures on atomic masses —

Comparing TNED/MAC ¦ NoStatistics ¦ DiffGraphs ¦ UeDiff

there would apparently neither be any connecting form type

"paragonic connection r0/rN = (√8)/(1+√3)"

— like a type »exquisite Pythagorean Nuclear Theorem» either. And we would be smoked: no deducible connection to the R-circle

EnergyCIRCLE ¦

in the spectrum of the Hydrogen atom. And this writ never existed.

 

The only thing demanded for connecting matter physics with mass physics

MatterPhysicsANDmassPHYSICS  ¦

to a deducible unit, becomes with the above stated exposition hence an already inherent, naturally given paragonic form (»structure of mathematics — flowers»), completely deducible from natural logics, and which alone can attend and link up all the details to a comprehensible unit.

MathematicsFIVE  ¦

 

Or in other words (apparently): the neutron square.

NeutronSquare ¦ Comparing TNED/MAC ¦ NoStatistics ¦ DiffGraphs ¦ UeDiff

The neutron square connection to the atomic masses in a comparison with modern academic theory (which apparently has a deep native contempt for this type of engagement in nature: not at all represented, unless something missed)

Comparing TNED/MAC ¦ NoStatistics ¦ DiffGraphs ¦ UeDiff ¦ The WeizsäckerEquation

has already exposed the sovereign superiority and accurate TNED hitting capability in its obvious matrimony with experimental physics results.

NoStatistics ¦ DiffGraphs ¦ UeDiff ¦

 

 

Continue on

ProtonRADIUS

and the general

The Atomic Nucleus.

 

 

ProtonRADIUS ¦ SummingConclusion 

 

ImpulsmomentetRef: AngularMomentum: J = mvr = m(2pr/T0)r = mwr2

 

 

 

 

 

 

AngularMomentum ¦ SummingConclusion ¦ PAMELA 

 

CalCards: Kalkylkort:  NOTE. OpenOffice SpreadSheet. Swedish EditionOnly

 

 

PART OF THE AIM behind these open available CalCards is of course

•   first the availability of the proving mathematics on exact basics

•   with the possibility for any interested reader to make own tests, or further, whatever

•   offering a complete open access index to the complete work behind  the main text :

•   we leave no one behind in related physics and mathematics, as far as we can.

 

 

NuclearSize2023.ods

 

kalkylkorten nedan DIREKT FRÅN DEN HÄR WEBBLÄSAREN NuclearSize2023.ods — se öppningsmanual om ej redan bekant — eller kopiera URL:en nedan till valfri webbläsare (vilket som fungerar — förutsatt att SVENSKA VERSIONEN av gratisprogramvaran OPEN OFFICE finns installerad på datorn)

http://www.universumshistoria.se/AaKort/NuclearSize2023.ods

CalculusCards OpenOffice SpreadSheet. Swedish EditionOnly to the AtomicNucleus

Table 1 ¦ Table 2 ¦ Table 3 ¦ Table 4 ¦

Table 1               constants

 

Table 2               HOP1967 atomic mass table — only extracted all stable nuclei 1H1 to 83Bi209

HANDBOOK OF PHYSICS, E. U. Condon, McGraw-Hill 1967 ¦ Atomviktstabellen i HOP allmän referens i denna presentation, Table 2.1 MASS TABLE ¦ s9–65—9–86

 

 

Table 3               Same as Table2 — with additional testing and calculating cells and columns — specified in the main text, leading here

 

Table 4               Same as Table3 — with additional testing and calculating cells and columns — specified in the main text, leading here

 

 

CalCards

 

 

 

 

 

content:

The Atomic Nucleus 2023VII15

 

innehåll: SÖK äMNESORD på denna sida Ctrl+F ·

 

 

 

The Atomic Nucleus

innehåll — content

 

 

 

Deuteron’s Secret ¦ Deuteronens Hemlighet | Angular Momentum’s r/√2-criterion | 2008VIII6 ¦ 2023VII15

 

 

 

              The Atomic Nucleus — general survey Jul2023+

 

TheNP

Introduction

TheFUNDAMENTAL

NuclearStructure

DEUTERONENS_HEMLIGHET

Kriterium_071r

TheDEUTERONsecret

FormFactor

TheNEUTRON

Kref

 

TheNuclearMASSprinciple

NuclearTopSPINN

TheRESULT

N3m20results

RevealingStructure

TCQ

TheTNEDresolution

NuclearRadiiChangeREF

 

How

Nis3

CubeGraph

TheFollowing

 

Deuteron1CON

Deuteron2CON

TheFirst

DetailedExplanation

Discussion

 

NUCLEARradius

GravityCircle

A1A2spec

Quotes

Lin2019

HOP1967

Angeli2004Q

 

ProtonRADIUS

WikipediaChargeRadius

ComparingQuotes

ComparingFrame

ItIsTNED

AngeliTNED

Why

 

TheHammerExplanation

Angeli2004

WholePicture

DataSpecifications

TWP

plusCUBEgraph

EquationToSolve

Congruence

IllustratedExplanation

HoldingPoints

NuclearSize

Articles

Force

NeutronExcess

Dmax

BackGround

EverythingIncluded

AcademicNucSize

Reservation

 

WikipediaDisinform

LiQUOTEex

 

NoStatistics

NoNucleons

ConfirmingThe71

ScienceDaily

HumanRightRecognition

FromN3m20ToN3m15

m015

ITNewN3m15

NUCLEARradiusPART — 2023

NuclearRadiusCurves

INTRODUINGm15

MaxA

TheNeutronSquare

DATA2008

GravityForce

 

DEDUCTION

ToroDIM

Derivation

DeuteronGravityC

GravCirA2

T1ref

T1refFINAL

ToroRadius

THEkFactor

 

iDivR

CDD

ProtonGravityC

iREF

mREF

TheTNEDHofstadterMassBooster

 

NuclearToroidRelations

ReHofstadter1956

HofstadterEXPERIMENTALinTNED

 

ExplainingScatteringResults

HofstadterSOURCE

HOPr0

NoteLightMass

TNEDNucSizeImpact

ImpactDetails

 

TenMap

TheArgument

SurfaceMassPressure

ActualArgument

GenuineAttesting

 

NuclearRadiusNuclearCharge

DeducingTHErZ

TheToroV

psi

Rank1

Rank2

Rank3

Rank4

Rank5

Evaluation

TheFINALrZ

TheFinal

TheBasic

TheProvision

Prediction

HofLIST

Evaluation2

Result

TNEDnuclearCharge

HofstadterTNED

TheAdopted

TheTNEDrZCHART

TNEDcomparingHofstadter1956Result

rrZresult

SEIG

TheELECTRONmassELEMENT

Gamow1966

RelatedUncertainty

 

NuclearBasics

N3m20m15

TEPRIS

TNEDbasicPlanckRINGStructure

TNEDnuclearChargeBasics — Part 1

TNEDnuclearChargeBasics2

NeutronDecay

Compressed

 

rZapplication50Sn

HofstadterTNEDapplication

TheCorruptedNucleus

 

PAMELA

SummingConclusion

TheRESULTinSum

Impulsmomentet_ref

AngularMomentum

 

TheNeutronSquareSignificance

 

CalCards

Kalkylkort

 

content

 

 

 

 

 

referenser

 

 

 

[HOP]. HANDBOOK OF PHYSICS, E. U. Condon, McGraw-Hill 1967

Atomviktstabellen i HOP allmän referens i denna presentation, Table 2.1 MASS TABLE ¦ s9–65—9–86

mn        = 1,0086652u  ......................    neutronmassan i atomära massenheter (u) [HOP Table 2.1 s9–65]

me        = 0,000548598u  ..................    elektronmassan i atomära massenheter (u) [HOP Table 10.3 s7–155 för me , Table 1.4 s7–27 för u]

u           = 1,66043 t27 KG  ..............     atomära massenheten [HOP Table 1.4 s7–27, 1967]

u           = 1,66033 t27 KG  ..............     atomära massenheten [ENCARTA 99 Molecular Weight]

u           = 1,66041 t27 KG ...............     atomära massenheten [FOCUS MATERIEN 1975 s124sp1mn]

u           = 1,66053886 t27 KG  ........     atomära massenheten [teknisk kalkylator, lista med konstanter SHARP EL-506W (2005)]

u           = 1,6605402 t27 KG  ..........     atomära massenheten [@INTERNET (2007) sv. Wikipedia]

u           = 1,660538782 t27 KG  ......     atomära massenheten [från www.sizes.com],

CODATA rekommendation från 2006 med toleransen ±0,000 000 083 t27 KG (Committe on Data for Science and Technology)]

c0          = 2,99792458 T8 M/S  ........     ljushastigheten i vakuum [ENCARTA 99 Light, Velocity, (uppmättes i början på 1970-talet)]

h           = 6,62559 t34 JS  .................    Plancks konstant [HOP s7–155]

e           = 1.602 · t19 C ....................     FOCUS MATERIEN 1975s666

 

 

[BA]. BONNIERS ASTRONOMI 1978

— Det internationella standardverket om universum sammanställt vid universitetet i Cambridge, The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of Astronomy, London 1977.

[FM]. FOCUS MATERIEN 1975 — Fysikens, kemins och astronomins historia. Allt från atomen till universum — fysik, kemi, jordvetenskap och astronomi

[BKL]. BONNIERS KONVERSATIONS LEXIKON, 12 band A(1922)-Ö(1928) med SUPPLEMENT A-Ö(1929)

 

t för 10–, T för 10+, förenklade exponentbeteckningar

 

t för 10–, T för 10+, förenklade exponentbeteckningar

 

PREFIXEN FÖR bråkdelar och potenser av FYSIKALISKA STORHETER

Här används genomgående och konsekvent beteckningarna

 

förkortning       för        förenklad potensbeteckning

 

d                       deci      t1

c                        centi     t2

m                      milli      t3

µ                       mikro   t6

n                       nano     t9

p                       pico      t12

f                        femto   t15

 

Alla Enheter anges här i MKSA-systemet (M meter, KG kilo[gram], S sekund, A ampere), alla med stor bokstav, liksom följande successiva tusenprefix:

 

K                      kilo       T3

M                     mega     T6

G                      giga       T9

T                       tera       T12

 

Exempel: Medan många skriver cm för centimeter skrivs här konsekvent cM (centiMeter).

 

MAC, här ofta använd förkortning för Modern ACademy — etablerad vetenskap sedan början av 1800-talet

In UH often used abbreviation for modern academy — explicitly from the beginning of the 1800s

MAC — often used abbreviation in TNED for Modern ACademy

 

 

TNED — Related PHYSICS And MATHEMATICS — Se särskild djupbeskrivning av innebörden i begreppet relaterad framställning.

Toroid Nukleära Elektro MEKANISKA Dynamiken

 

 

  

 

(Toroid Nuclear Electromechanical Dynamics), eller Toroidnukleära Elektromekaniska Dynamiken är den dynamiskt ekvivalenta resultatbeskrivning som följer av härledningarna i Planckringen h=mnc0rn, analogt Atomkärnans Härledning. Beskrivningen enligt TNED är relaterad, vilket innebär: alla, samtliga, detaljer gör anspråk på att vara fullständigt logiskt förklarbara och begripliga, eller så inte alls. Med TNED förstås (således) också

RELATERAD FYSIK OCH MATEMATIK. Se även uppkomsten av termen TNED i Atomkärnans Härledning.

 

 

SHORT ENGLISH — TNED in general is not found @INTERNET except under this domain

(Universe[s]History, introduced @INTERNET 2008VII3).

TNED or Toroid Nuclear Electromechanical Dynamics is the dynamically equivalent resulting description following the deductions in THE PLANCK RING, analogous AtomNucleus’ Deduction. The description according to TNED is related, meaning: all, each, details claim to be fully logically explainable and understandable, or not at all. With TNED is (hence) also understood RELATED PHYSICS AND MATHEMATICS. See also the emergence of the term TNED in AtomNucleus’ Deduction.

 

 

 

 

Senast uppdaterade version: 2023-12-21.

 

*END.

 

Stavningskontrollerat-SpellChecked up to: .. 28Aug2023.

 

rester

*

åter till portalsidan   ·   portalsidan är www.UniversumsHistoria.se 

 

Unicode:

 

∫ ∫ Δ √ Δ ≠ →∞ √ ω π τ ε ħ UNICODE — ofta använda tecken i matematiska-tekniska-naturvetenskapliga beskrivningar

— Ctrl+Shift+Q i Microsoft WORD direkt till SYMBOL

σ ρ ν ν υ π τ γ λ η ≠ √ ħ ω →∞ →γ ≡  ¦ Alt+ 1..9 ☺☻♥☺♦♣♠•◘○ υ Ψ

Ω Φ Ψ Σ Π Ξ Λ Θ Δ 

α β γ δ ε λ θ κ π ρ τ φ ϕ σ ω ϖ ∏ √ ∑ ∂ ∆ ∫ ≤ ≈ ≥ ˂ ˃ ← ↑ → ∞ ↓

ϑ ζ ξ

Pilsymboler, direkt via tangentbordet:

Alt+24 ↑; Alt+25 ↓; Alt+26 →; Alt+27 ←; Alt+22 ▬

Alt+23 ↨ — även Alt+18 ↕; Alt+29 ↔

 

 

 

 

 

Senast uppdaterade version: 21 december 2023 |  00:17:35 | 2023-12-21. [GMT+1]Solar [GMT+2]Industry

*

 

BILDKÄLLA: Författarens arkiv · 3Jul2012  E12  Bild 198;293  ·  Nikon D90  ·  Fria Teckningar — Angående Statens och Kommunernas uppmärksammade UPPENBART SJUKA NATURUPPFATTNING — civilisationens återerövring.

 

Denna webbsidas ansvariga författare kan nås med e-mail på Webbadressen

¦belldharma¦SNABELA¦universumshistoria¦PUNKT¦se¦ MEN SKICKA INTE MED LÄNKAR — utom överenskommelse kasseras sådan e-post omgående

 

åter till portalsidan   ·   portalsidan är www.UniversumsHistoria.se