Sunday, December 5, 2010
Did the LHC Rediscover Proto-atoms ?
Did the LHC Rediscover Proto-atoms ?
I took a look again at the periodic table (and a few variations for it on line) with the idea in mind to make a better way to recall it as if an English poem or sonnet. But I ran into difficulties as to just what these periods were to represent when we really get up into the bigger picture of atomic structure. I certainly would not want to commit to memory, as these persist, a less than adequate or efficient form of the table which although useful may not efficiently grow. I also wanted to include other aspects or properties in the same associations.
But in the search for a better way to list the elements I found some rather interesting numbers- almost too many not to suggest a persuasive numerological coincidence. Perhaps our designation are arbitrary anyway although a universal standard set - but can we replace them like at the end of the table with their number-ium? The historical poetry may be useful for chemists and certainly the relation between the atoms of a species, eka-this or that for biology. But in a world where we are not certain as to the grounding of some rather simple things like the geometry of the whole as a structure and mechanism, is this our best of what seems to me to be an outdated theory. Not a Smoo theory where the cartoon creature supplies the universe with endless milk and eggs and only too readily will jump into the frying pan, but a Smooth eeriness still and maybe forever in the realm of magic.
In general the exchange of mediator particles can be mapped to the duality in oscillation of some fundamental sphereical top solids such as the cube and octahedron. I have thought, thinking as well the atomic theory superior to those of a spatious idealism where once in time the characters of our story take on a life of their own including perhaps the concrete fact of the memory of others, that the dual for the 120 cell in four space, the 600, has to do with the nucleus of an atom and whatever the pairings are for that set of magic numbers (can anyone tell me if it is finally understood why those are the numbers of the electron shells- called magic numbers as a traditional term like imaginary for that still unknown- that in high school books said no one knew the reason for them?
But with this different and philosophical approach of alternative possibilities I have the idea that such a dualism needs not be concentrated in some center of things, at least the abstract grounding geometry. Theories then are not to drive our empirical researches, the bias toward quantum theory for example, but should, as science be driven by such experiments to the next higher or deeper shell levels of matter and of awareness. Granted, this may be a physical truth only for systems of the general biology including patterns of thought that mimic emergence and unity.
The magic numbers were 2 8 18 32 50 ... from the number theory formula and these break down into 2, 2 6, 2 6 10, 2 6 10 14 - 2 6 10 14, 2 6 10, 2 6, 2. Which add up to 120. But I rather see it as K L M N and a mirror of those shells rather than saying there are KLMNOPQR as progressively differnt shells (but we may call them OPQR).
We can realize half of these numbers as the odds 1 3 5 7 (9) ... or we can double or quadruple them- and between all the lines if set out in a pattern find many interesting numbers- a lot of these are the binary powers and the rigid rotation groups. 120 moreover is 5! and if we imagine we can only put these in a table as a triangular matrix, 120 being triangular, the symmetry of the structure is revovered if we imagine it as a flat triangle of one side (monohedron?) and the first two numbers can be mapped two ways on the three corners- or 6. 6x 120 is 120 + 600 = 6!
So the balanced symmetry of the structure only appears so in higher abstract space.
I also note that we can map some of the things in terms of my quasic grid (but due to the nature of numbers themselves we have to consider what seems left out of say 128 or 2 x 64 quasically centered squares. Rather we can have 2 x 60, but this is part of the symmetry of these early integers. We could make a dice of 15 sets of the elements for example and paste them on the faces of an octahedron- but what would this tell us of the chemical properties of the elements we so memorize? We can also count as zero one of the points of a hypercube and have 8 of them. But do we not think of such numbers, for example the 12 x 5 of it in the Dirac algebra? Do we not feel a hidden symmetry in the 60 flat recursive shapes for the pentacubes or maybe that space filled by the ones that fill three and four dimensions?
Yet, to name these 120 items seems on one had quite a simple undertaking- but on the other hand too many items to handle. I am amazed to think my perceptions of space, as in for example that we may see a little ways beyond the Big Bang in the WMAP and indeed find properties hinting of other universes at the origin - as amazed to think that from some view the nuclelus and the electron shell configuration is an ideal but predictible structure within the same diffuse dimension. How else would be explain not only the attraction as if at a distance of charged particles and even more the mysterious effects between them as if there were not direct physical connection?
* * *
I looked around a bit- found this most interesting set of periodic tables- but I really did think the matter was closed on these "magic numbers" for the electron configuration and for the nucleus. Then again Pauling's idea here of the kernels is sort of a centered view of things...
and this interesting one:
* * *
The proto-atom then more like the "plum pudding" model only there is a certain illusion or reach circularity (as in Pauling's sphereons). I suppose before this the solid one substance perfect and indivisible model of an atom with or without some idea of space between them- so the question seems to be what would a more unified model of the atom be (or for that matter any other sort of creative and quasi-finite "particle")?
Perhaps it is time that we look a little deeper into the actually postulated higher or deeper nuclei in nuclei- that is to say, what I roughly describe as higher than our observed dimensional matter. Perhaps that will be on a level or scale that the desired standard table of the atom (electron and nuclear shell structures) will fall out of our synthetic and analytic concepts and equations and be more easily seen. Does it not strike anyone the obvious, that chemicals and atoms themselves have a certain finite structure in their group relations that begs for us to look at this part of geometry and group theory and not just some idea of infinite groups- at least in the universe as experienced unto the remote effects of its quasi-finitude?
Then, again, the picture could prove rather simple enough that we stumble on it by shear trial and error. So the question for the cosmic background and for the heart of atoms (including a wider concept of the "inside" of creative objects like black holes) is how far can we really see into the absolute? Can the quasic theory by itself describe these structures? Can we see beyond the absolute atom which like the universe from some abstract viewpoint may be said to evolve?
* * * *