mcompengr

But, there are more than one (1). They are not related through number, but shape. Number is number two with geometry, that's why it's depreciated. Something about shape is number one. The forest not the trees. There is a pattern: geometry is left out. Thanks again for the other reply. The Standard Model folks ain't looking at smoke and mirrors, are they? "A Geometric Theory of Everything", A.Garrett Lisi and James Orwen Weatherall, Scientific American, December 2010.

The x, y-axes could be log-plotted with variable base and variably scaled from infinity-small to infinity-far (rather than large), with variable alignments and separation allowed. No zero or negative numbers, no addition or subtraction, some other algebra/arithmatic for just exponentiation and any physical number needed from Planckland to Hubbleton. Also, no discontinuities. "Little help" in American Engl. is a request for some of that stuff. Differentiate this: dynamic plotting with equations used to set and control the varying alignment, base and scaling, independently for each axis.

"The Law is not itself God, nor is God the Law." -Dietrich Bonhoeffer Attempts to achieve total conscienceness exhibit asymptotic freedom. Simplicity and clarity are signposts on the way to truth, but the approach of creationism produces a false simplicity at best. It's wrong to question motives, but the desire to "know" can become obsessive and can turn into a desire for there to be nothing unknown at all as an achievable goal. "Turn key" belief systems do not dispel mystery, they whitewashe it. Now then, to prove that classic creationism is in no way possible would be to prove that an omnipotent creator does not exist. And, quantum mechanics seems to allow for the possibility of creationism, dinosaur bones in the dirt and all. However, it is to be hoped that an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent being would not play "Where's Waldo?" on us, and that God would not cheat if playing solitaire (or not).

Reverse engineering always produce "an" answer. Entanglement, quantum ; Two (+/-) copycatted particle(s) engaged in a joint superposition of shared locations might fit the bill. The idea being that that would involve one particle jumping back and forth, or two particles swapping positions every other odd planck-time. Well, it might except for the Aharonov-Bohm effect doesn't fit. [(A-B effect, not about two-slit interference, but shifting it by affecting the particles in a two-slit experiment differently, just because of their charge, and yet without using a field. Something about potentials and phase. "The Fabric of the Cosmos", Brian Greene, A.A.Knopf, 2004.)]

New Math The big problem for mathematics is that infinity is not a number. In the interest of symmetry, perhaps infinity needs a real partner rather than a clone multiplied by negative one (-1), infinity far verses small. Infinitiny; Infinitely small, greater than zero, everywhere, a real omnipresence. Its essential quality: It must be equally as incomprehensible as infinity. Doing away with the numeral '0' does nothing, but zero has to go. Coordinate axes which do not intersect, perpendicular but separated by some planck-length might allow that. For computation it could be said that infinity multiplied by infinite small equals one (1). (Logically okay because this, like infinity, is not a number.) (Infinity x "goes to zero" = 1.) Diverge that. Okay, assuming all fields need a pole, existence and matter fields too: that'd be a discrete-space's 1-membrane. A regular tetrahedron can be drawn naturally between any two perpendicular, non-intersecting lines like the x, y-axes above. That "planck-volume" made from four equally spaced points surrounding the 1-brane would be delineated by six lines, a 6-brane. The real x, y, and z dimensions would then be the three lines through the center, perpendicular to and bisecting the three pairs of perpendicular lines of the tetrahedron, a 3-brane on the outside. Ten dimensions then?..

Yes, thanks. It was this below, (plus an undergrad chemistry text, & Encyc.of Sci. and Tech. McGraw/Hill.) http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/Compositions/stand_alone.pl?ele=&ascii=html&isotype=some

I love it when it seems that one (1) tiny thing could solve many small puzzles, without contradicting something. Would it do that? Is it clear and terse enough? Acme, I have others. What should I do? It's a white rabbit, but I'm not Mad Hatter, am I? Is there not data which shows patterns? Or the speculation forum. -Door Mouse

Yes, thanks, even verses odd atomic mass. With much respect for what this forum represents, got them switched like spelling fission: "fillion" above. Truly sorry for the distraction and any more. Without respect to spin or proton number, Z,: The vast majority of isotopes have an even number of neutrons. One way or another, every paragraph is meant to point to the big sillyness (small thesis) that nucleons may relate to each other as if they were that shape.

F. Iron, Why 56? (see Organizing Principles) For atomic nuclei the component nucleons' environment is understood well enough. What is not known is just what nucleonic aspects demand what sort of complex organizing of the nuclei. (A leap of rhetoric is made here. If space had a shape, what might it be?) The question "why 56?" has been asked about the number of nucleons in the iron nucleus, and it is noted that 56 regular tetrahedra tile "loosely" forming a loose but 100% effective connectivity of "56" about an empty central slot. (Compared to "26" for the cube.) The issue is the total number of nucleons. The tetrahedron's dihedral angle is 70.528779 degrees, the arccos(1/3). (72 degrees would be too perfect.) The look of the thing is astonishing in simplicity and symmetries. It fairly proclaims fillion above and fusion below. It is itself, of course, a stylized regular tetrahedron with others at its core made from 4 and 16, and its own self likewise the core of another at 200. (He, O, Fe, Hg?) These structures would be more solid than most were there just something strong to force the pieces together. Nucleons would have limited elbow room. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZhaTgFwVl0 (Graphic sketch of 56 regular tetrahedra.) There are hints at structure to notice in the complete sequence: 4, 12, 16, 56, 92, 128, 164, 200, 236, [( 272, and 308. The last two because they coincide with the found and predicted "islands of stability" in the periodic table of the elements. A final one is predicted at 344. )] The increment of 36 nucleons above iron-56 reveals several other coincidences (wanting to be judged "coincidences") and involves an additional empty slot with each new 36 nucleon block. 36, and they would all get added in one place, on one side. Odd unless the optimal structures need the empty slot, and then another solid, iron-like nucleus appears. (20 nucleons shared with what is already there.) [( http://www.infosources.org/what_is/Island_of_stability.html, etc. )] [( 272 and 308 the "islands of stability" in the periodic table. )] Single isotopic element clusters at 56, 92, 128, 164, 200, and 236. Visual appearance of 4, 12, 16, 56, and 200. Correlation (weak) to peaks and troughs of magnetic susceptibility. (McGraw-Hill, #10, fig. 1, p. 304) Periodic table atomic mass glitches at 56, 128, and 236. It all seems just a little too coincidental, but "It looks" is a beginning not an end. The binding energy of the "iron peak", and carbon's "resonance" vs. oxygen's lack of that, would look explained. (The carbon nucleus would be identical to oxygen's stylized regular tetrahedron but with the helium nucleus inside gone.) Every other element above iron alternates between having only one or two isotopes, and having many. All the way up the shapes remain smooth and solid looking by adding just two figures together almost anywhere. The alternating change in nucleonic binding energy between every element would have an explanation. Almost every isotope above iron has an even number of neutrons. (An odd number of protons with an odd atomic mass, or even with even.) Why does the universe favor atomic fermions? This proposed nuclei "structure function" is well organized, like the Russian dolls. The periodic table would be one big nested nest of stylized regular tetrahedra. Every isotope would contain the nucleus of every single element that came before it. The residual strong force would certainly have an easier time of it, and this would help solid to follow liquid and gas into the nuclei model (why not?). An Other Periodic Table X H He Li Be B C N Li Be B C N O F Ne Na Mg Al Si P Al Si P S Cl Cr K Ca Sc Ti V Cr Mn Fe Co Ni Cu Zn Ga Ge As Fe Co Ni Cu Zn Ga Ge As Se Br Kr Rb Sr Y Z r Nb Mo Tc Ru Rh Pd Ag Sr Y Zr Nb Mo Tc Ru Rh Pd Ag Cd In Sn Sb Te I Xe Cs Ba La Ce Pr Te I Xe Cs Ba La Ce Pr Nd Pm Sm Eu Gd Tb Dy Ho Er Tm Yb Lu Hf Ta Dy Ho Er Tm Yb Lu Hf Ta W Re Os Ir Pt Au Hg Ti Pb Bi Po At Rn Fr Pt Au Hg Ti Pb Bi Po At Rn Fr Ra Ac h Pa U Np Y KEY: Because of the differing proton-neutron ratio between elements, any nucleonic "shells" won't columnate well by proton when the organiz ing principle is an increment of atomic mass (36 nucleons). Near 'X', Nb and Cs are one and three protons past the reference column, respectively. At 'Y' they are both 11 protons shy of their next reference column element. Single isotopic elements are underlined. Lines can not wrap. Numerology? Say it ain't so. [( Closed-shell nuclei numbers for reference: 2, 8, 20, 28, 50, 82, 126 )]