The Campbell Isotope stability spectrum

[grayson]

This is completely different than the Rumpelstiltskin theory! It started as that but it evolved into this. I would like to make a clear point that it has evolved. Here is the equation:

A=±(O*C)

A is the spectrum, or the value, which can be positive or negative

± is whether the equation is positive or negative.

C is the Campbell Change Variable. It is determined by the number of particles (an atom counts as one) in 100 picometers from the isotope/atom. It also adds an invisible t at the end

O is the original A value. See, with the invisible t the C, the equation repeats itself over and over again. The O is the A from the last cycle.

Now that you know the basics, lets explain the more complex stuff.

When you put the equation into action, you see that isotopes like to be in the middle of stable (+) and unstable (-) But it still changes no matter what

It also determines that the number of particles affects the atoms stability.

I haven't tested this yet, but I believe when A reaches zero something such as a decay chain happens.

With this theory, We can understand much more.

[swansont]

You need to show how this can be tested - how does this match up with real evidence?

[Genady]

1 hour ago, grayson said:

±

I am flattered.

[grayson]

2 minutes ago, Genady said:

I am flattered.

Yup. But I want to plug in a new concept. It is called the "quantum effectiveness scale" It says each particles effectiveness with c on a scale of one to 100. I am working on it right now

Here is what chatgpt said. We can fix these later:

1. Photon (γ): 5 Photons carry electromagnetic interactions and can cause electron transitions, but their effects at these scales might be relatively weaker.

2. W and Z Bosons (W+, W-, Z0): 80 W and Z bosons are associated with weak interactions, including processes like beta decay, which can lead to nuclear transitions and decay.

3. Gluons (g): 95 Gluons mediate the strong nuclear force, and at very short distances, within the confinement radius of hadrons, they are extremely influential.

4. Higgs Boson (H⁰): 1 The Higgs boson primarily interacts with massive particles to give them mass. Its direct effects on atomic or nuclear decay at this scale are minimal.

5. Quarks: 85 Quarks are constituents of hadrons and contribute to the strong force. Their interactions could influence nuclear and subnuclear processes.

6. Leptons (Electron, Muon, Tau): 10 Leptons experience weak interactions, but their effects might be weaker at such small distances compared to other particles.

7. Neutrinos: 20 Neutrinos are involved in weak interactions and can induce nuclear reactions, but their weak interactions might reduce their effects at this scale.

The new equation is:

A=±(O*C(Q))

Q is the quantum effectiveness scale

[swansont]

These equations need to line up with reality, meaning that they need to be confirmed by experiment. What experimental evidence can you give us?

[grayson]

21 hours ago, swansont said:

These equations need to line up with reality, meaning that they need to be confirmed by experiment. What experimental evidence can you give us?

Shoot a bunch of gluons at an atom to see when a decay chain happens

8 minutes ago, grayson said:

Shoot a bunch of gluons at an atom to see when a decay chain happens

Guys, there is no logical way to prove it. We would have to do something impossible. Another easier thing i guess is to build a nuclear reactor but that is highy unneccessary!

[StringJunky]

The less one knows, the more is possible.

[grayson]

3 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

The less one knows, the more is possible.

I wouldn't want to build a nuclear reactor in my backyard when logic tells me not to. So no, I cant prove it

[swansont]

42 minutes ago, grayson said:

Shoot a bunch of gluons at an atom to see when a decay chain happens

Any proposed experiment has to be possible in principle.

Out of the many thousands of experiments that have been done, surely you can glean some supporting data.

[grayson]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

Any proposed experiment has to be possible in principle.

Out of the many thousands of experiments that have been done, surely you can glean some supporting data.

Well, when you build a nuclear reactor you make an atom absorb a neutron. This can make decay chains happen. The equation goes toward zero, and whenever it goes past zero, something significant in the atom changes. Such as, (Deap breath) FISSION or certain decay chains.

unfortunately the Q in the equation doesn't have a number for neutrons

Somebody is ruining my reputation!

I am sorry, but Iam leaving this forum until I either find out who "downvote bot" is or "downvote bot" stops downvoting everything

[Sensei]

29 minutes ago, grayson said:

Somebody is ruining my reputation!

It is certainly you..

 

30 minutes ago, grayson said:

I am sorry, but Iam leaving this forum until I either find out who "downvote bot" is or "downvote bot" stops downvoting everything

People tend to down vote obvious nonsense..

[grayson]

3 minutes ago, Sensei said:

It is certainly you..

 

People tend to down vote obvious nonsense..

Yes, but read the alchemist formula. Idk why they downvoted it. Maybe because it is called the "ALCHEMIST" formula. But I don't have any idea in my right mind

You know what. I have no reason to fight. If you want to call my things nonsense or downvote my comments. I might as well avoid this all together

[swansont]

48 minutes ago, grayson said:

Well, when you build a nuclear reactor you make an atom absorb a neutron. This can make decay chains happen. The equation goes toward zero, and whenever it goes past zero, something significant in the atom changes. Such as, (Deap breath) FISSION or certain decay chains.

We have a fairly successful model for why fission happens. 

 

48 minutes ago, grayson said:

unfortunately the Q in the equation doesn't have a number for neutrons

Somebody is ruining my reputation!

I am sorry, but Iam leaving this forum until I either find out who "downvote bot" is or "downvote bot" stops downvoting everything

“The equation goes toward zero, and whenever it goes past zero, something significant in the atom changes.” isn’t particularly rigorous.

Post better science, and your reputation will improve.

[grayson]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

The less one knows, the more is possible.

Yes, and the only true wisdom is knowing that you know nothing. everything is possible

[swansont]

Just now, grayson said:

everything is possible

Physics tells us otherwise 

[iNow]

46 minutes ago, grayson said:

everything is possible

Okay, then… Find me a rational number for X that’s the correct answer to X =√2

[Phi for All]

18 hours ago, grayson said:

Yes, and the only true wisdom is knowing that you know nothing. everything is possible

So many specious claims! "True" wisdom doesn't exist. There are MANY wise things, not "only" one. You know MANY things, not "nothing". And no, not everything is possible, that's why we say some things are impossible (examples have been given).

You're a smart person, but you don't seem to get that others have thought in a similar way, and they've done experiments and research and we now use that work as the basis for all of mainstream science. You need to learn a LOT more of that accumulated human knowledge, but instead you've learned SOME but are now trying to base conclusions and new concepts on partial knowledge. As swansont said, the model we use for fission works really well, so why come up with something new unless it's a LOT better? 

[grayson]

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

So many specious claims! "True" wisdom doesn't exist. There are MANY wise things, not "only" one. You know MANY things, not "nothing". And no, not everything is possible, that's why we say some things are impossible (examples have been given).

You're a smart person, but you don't seem to get that others have thought in a similar way, and they've done experiments and research and we now use that work as the basis for all of mainstream science. You need to learn a LOT more of that accumulated human knowledge, but instead you've learned SOME but are now trying to base conclusions and new concepts on partial knowledge. As swansont said, the model we use for fission works really well, so why come up with something new unless it's a LOT better? 

I see I have become a nuisance in the science world. I guess I will just stick to math

[Bufofrog]

1 hour ago, grayson said:

I see I have become a nuisance in the science world

I think you come off as a bit haughty. 

[iNow]

1 hour ago, grayson said:

I see I have become a nuisance in the science world. I guess I will just stick to math

Not at all. You’re still learning the general gestalt here. Your brain moves quickly, is full of huge ideas, and you’re probably used to being the smartest person in the room.

Here, however, it’s a big room with lots of very smart people and we’re all seeking to improve ourselves and each other with clarity, calmness, and patience. 

Ask more. Assert less. When others in the room know more than us, stop to watch and listen.

Don’t lose your passion. Just slow it down a touch, and recall that answers often already exist and don’t need to be reinvented from whole cloth. 

[grayson]

52 minutes ago, iNow said:

Not at all. You’re still learning the general gestalt here. Your brain moves quickly, is full of huge ideas, and you’re probably used to being the smartest person in the room.

Here, however, it’s a big room with lots of very smart people and we’re all seeking to improve ourselves and each other with clarity, calmness, and patience. 

Ask more. Assert less. When others in the room know more than us, stop to watch and listen.

Don’t lose your passion. Just slow it down a touch, and recall that answers often already exist and don’t need to be reinvented from whole cloth. 

Thank you.