THE ATOMIC NUCLEUS 2023VII15 | a  production ·  |  Senast uppdaterade version: 2023-10-15 · 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

 

 

 

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 I 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 hol