Quasomnium (Qsom) and
Atom Structure
L. Edgar Otto 27 June, 2012
11:56:57 PM
In view of these
quasicity of principles involved in regard to the elements we ask if we can
apply them to a new form of the periodic table.
I find this new problem difficult so as to put them in a quasic grid
similar to that for the gene code. But
one key solution occurs to me beyond the haunting similarity to string or other
theories such a my earlier attempt to take the Z number of the elements in a
sort of quasic and natural order beginning with H. This seems to show some properties of which
the theories of Pitkanen on numbers hints at.
Also involved is all the consideration of group theory and its abstract
algebra. How do I distinguish my own
take on fundamental numbers where they apply?
I almost wish I had collaboration on this problem which causes me to
doubt today the value of my explorations.
But this shows a sort of progress of our intuitions facing the
foundations to be known. I, however,
designate this with my -om suffix as a philosphic continuum rather than a
synthesis of ideas from some other approach.
Certainly, the problem is one of expanding or generalizing the new
physics. I find it significant the
alternative theoreticians are most helpful in the fresh look for a more
unifying view of that level of physics.
*In the quasi-finite
universe we echo on all levels the idea that the laws of physics across the
span of known and accessible space is or
averages as uniform. But keep in mind
this may not be a necessary condition if or theories of everything find wider
depth among the uniformity.
*It is clear that
there are layers but of unclear number or alternatively a series of shells in a
creative and quason like object akin to periodic table models that use the
notation with the noble gasses as the kernel for successive shell filling. The insight is that we risk the general view
for the sake of discussion or clarity along some model path choice[
as to the rigidity of a theory or object of contemplation as is the
idea of natural dimensions. I quite
imagined that all the higher dimensional matter would collect into the quasar
objects much like some imagine extra dimensions is a matter of
compactification. But I see this needs
not be the case nor that the quasic space is in its own sense limited as
rigid.
The idea as space can
be a sea of quason singularities across dimensions on any scale dimensionless
or not from one theoretical view suggests a sort of hierarchy of such kernels
or planes (of which we gain little toward this theory to assume things like
branes or even stars can be thought to be charged.) For to the electron configuration if we call
it three space harmonics then the nucleus would be a higher dimension and its
sub components higher still, and the principle is that these interact within
the quason and between quasons. Such
analogies, while intelligible and even thought a super reductionism of physical
principles nevertheless preserves its quasifinite aspects, a natural
quantization that as groups also interact the idea of all continuous phenomena
only will not necessarily lead to a unique unified view, but partial ones are
also in the mix of the mathematics.
*In the general
quasomnium it is crucial to ask a principle more relaxed that the hard logical
choices as the axiom to one that asks can we choose elements from a quasifinite
set. At what actual place or time can we
say a choice is made in a process of developing mechanism if that choice is
more than the beginning of something at the foundations or the limit of
something as the end in a wider span of what we say is the idea of an atom or
quason. I imagine as a sort of neutral
relativity of the abstract particles and the count of them as if imaginary or
even dark particles, quasi-bosons perhaps as a vague term, to be part of the
count in which case in the general symmetry these rather than time like or
space like can be considered particle like (of course also wave like). The numbers come up in standard models in
physical equations such as 480 and so on, and of course the idea of Euclidean
ten or Einsteinian four space. Yet the
issue even here is but the next higher dimension, let us style it as the
fourth, to reach deeper into the symmetries of the nucleus (greater than 248 of
binary 256) is in a sense to deal beyond our long time questions of the nature
of the sub-nuclear forces.
*In a sense the three
forces are already unified and the place or processes of a choice, and one that
progresses and endures and is unique to a general aggregate actuality of view
depends on he quasic idea that what in the maximum change of binary coordinates
would appear at rest in one dimension may be an abstract motion one in the
dimension higher. To add gravity or
other forces seems to me a little beyond the dimensions we now investigate or
that in a sense it is identical in matter-gravity equivalence on the same
general dimensional span of which we should not expect vast differences of
these values if viewed in the higher dimensions, this is not a necessary state
of things and on a general level also may be accessed by statistical methods
provided we keep the general quasifinite principles in mind. In effect we redefine force and the
underlying geometry in these quasic (alternatively TGD) models and
phenomenology.
* * * * *
For one thing the 2 electron shell or a single electron to the noble gas atom of the period over the Z span accounts for 16 atoms of which we can make an analogy (that the chemistry evolves at least within the structure if not the atoms themselves) and this makes a quasic grid as if our DNA code once had a two base system and the several kernels or dimensional membranes continue to the 64 then 256 levels of inter-dimensions. We can have sets of 64 of those between this all or nothing quasic motion filling states by electrons. Also the 36 comes up and several considerations to make a multilevel quasic count of the real or perhaps neutral or dark complimentary atoms (and I do not mean something as simple as the essential quantum assumption that there are complex space counterparts that essentally adds a perpendicular direction as in y iy x in three space.
In Pitkanen we would expect by a simple quasic ordering code the prime or phi related number 89 as an element to have some relation to the general atomic structure, for example, as well as the exceptions to the periods that have atoms essentially radiation. It is remotely possible that some of the 120 on deeper mirror levels are not observable, a sort of reverse island of stability akin to some quason like particles.
But from the center it seems the bonding and dark bonds are only properties to observed in the main on the surface of the period in question. This raises interesting questions on the nature of the structures of government as decisive and evolving in a structure or not as is the case today for the USA issue on health care, at least in the short term. The court holds that we can tax people differently while not discouraging interstate commence. Mandates have been called a long time as efficient, mandates that solves the indecisiveness of democracy when the checks and balances exceed their own coherence and people believe some theory of doom and gloom or scarcities (false ones usually the short term case). From the quasic view as the nodes of information each period has its value in an economic sense. Hydrogen, and the so called Carbon tax which is apparently now constitutional. Beyond that is the tax of the precious metals themselves... and so on. Each element could be construed in the evolving of a social and political system as a tax node. In the process the three way troika quark like complication suggests that without better understanding (XeF4 bonding in inter-dimensionality should not be a surprise) our medicine with rising market costs with degrees of freedom or not will not get to the medical issue at hand- what we can save and who we can save by fundamental cures and not gross level addressing the symptoms mostly in our cut, burn, and poison expediency as to the traditional way to do medicine that does not know it can break what it cannot see to be fixed to so do harm. We would do well to show more respect for fundamental science.
* * * * * * *
No comments:
Post a Comment