1. Sub Quantum Echo Particles...(SQEP's) & Sub Quantum Echo Particle Kinetic Resonance Flux

[studiot]

15 minutes ago, Imagine Everything said:

Thanks, that was also interesting.

 

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_stability

 

https://www.thoughtco.com/island-stability-discovering-new-superheavy-elements-4018746

[Imagine Everything]

On 11/3/2024 at 11:41 PM, studiot said:

 

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_stability

 

https://www.thoughtco.com/island-stability-discovering-new-superheavy-elements-4018746

Hey Studiot,

The link I highlighted from your good self, has the following text in the first few lines...

The chemical elements beyond lead are radioactive, and they do not have stable isotopes. This means that they will decay into other elements. As their atomic number (the number of protons in their nucleus) increases, the time it takes for them to decay tends to get shorter, going from billions of years to less than one millisecond.

 

The bit I highlighted in green is fascinating to me.

I'm not saying it is exactly what I saw when my idea came to me and eventually led me to asking if I could and then posting this thread.

The thing I tried to so badly describe is something created to die instantly. The part I highlighted in green seems to say this far better than I could explain.

I think it happens in this 3rd state, which I'm still trying to learn more about and explain better and it seems that this island of stability and the elements leading up to it are created through huge and powerful collisions/supernovae.

Far, far different than my idea & yours is also mathematically proven of course.

Just wanted to say thanks & I'm really wasn't lying when I told you I had no physics education and wasn't borrowing or copying from others before coming here.

The idea I had just appeared to me as I said. I don't know what it means, if it even means anything at all.

But the one thing I would personally like to know is if it is a 'something' or if it isn't. Time will tell I guess, as it always seems to.

That's actually the main reason I approached a couple of forums.

The first physics forum rejected my request to post, you and this forum (I think it might have been Phi?) kindly said yes and I'm very grateful to you all for that.

It has at least allowed me to make some sense of this idea that came to me early August.

Thank you, all of you.

I couldn't sleep last night thinking about these elements that to me are created to die. Awesome!

 

[Imagine Everything]

7 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

Hey Studiot,

The link I highlighted from your good self, has the following text in the first few lines...

The chemical elements beyond lead are radioactive, and they do not have stable isotopes. This means that they will decay into other elements. As their atomic number (the number of protons in their nucleus) increases, the time it takes for them to decay tends to get shorter, going from billions of years to less than one millisecond.

 

The bit I highlighted in green is fascinating to me.

I'm not saying it is exactly what I saw when my idea came to me and eventually led me to asking if I could and then posting this thread.

The thing I tried to so badly describe is something created to die instantly. The part I highlighted in green seems to say this far better than I could explain.

I think it happens in this 3rd state, which I'm still trying to learn more about and explain better and it seems that this island of stability and the elements leading up to it are created through huge and powerful collisions/supernovae.

Far, far different than my idea & yours is also mathematically proven of course.

Just wanted to say thanks & I'm really wasn't lying when I told you I had no physics education and wasn't borrowing or copying from others before coming here.

The idea I had just appeared to me as I said. I don't know what it means, if it even means anything at all.

But the one thing I would personally like to know is if it is a 'something' or if it isn't. Time will tell I guess, as it always seems to.

That's actually the main reason I approached a couple of forums.

The first physics forum rejected my request to post, you and this forum (I think it might have been Phi?) kindly said yes and I'm very grateful to you all for that.

It has at least allowed me to make some sense of this idea that came to me early August.

Thank you, all of you.

I couldn't sleep last night thinking about these elements that  'seem' to me are created to die. Awesome!

 

Should have added 'seem' to the last sentance but couldn't edit.

[studiot]

6 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

I'm not saying it is exactly what I saw when my idea came to me and eventually led me to asking if I could and then posting this thread.

People have insights all the time.

Most of these come to nothing when a colleague says "Dont' be silly have you considered it weight ?" or somesuch.
Then the thinker has a facepalm moment.

Just sometimes a real inspiration occur.

Here are 3 examples.

I will use these to further develop energy and valency in this thread.

So firstly binding energy.

A nucleon is a name for particles we find in the nucleus of an atom  -  protons and neutrons.

When nucleons club together in certain ways they form nucleus.

The energy that holds the club together is called the binding energy.

Now each element has a differnt binding energy and if we divide each of these energies by the number of nucleons in that particular nucleus we find something interesting.

The binding energy per nucleon is not constant over the range of elements.

In fact there is a definite maximum bining energy per nucleon if we plot a graph over the range of elements.

 

 

The element with the most binding energy per nucleon is Iron (Fe).

I have drawn by hand a red dotted lin on the plot. It is meant to be straight and forms the divide between whether we can get energy from fusing nuclei together on the left or energy from breaking them apart on the right.

 

Second inspiration was at Sicar Point and occurred to the Geologist Hutton many years ago.
He saw layers of rock laid down directly horizontally on top of layers of rock that were vertical.
He recognised the important geological significance of the and defined the Unconformity where things had changed dramatically.

 

Finally we have a time when chemists had analysed many carbon compounds and understood that the valency of carbon is 4 and that of hydrogen 6.
They further understood that carbon atoms would use one or more of these valency 'hooks' to join to other carbon atoms perhaps in 'chain's of carbon atoms instead of using all of them to join to hydrogen atoms.

But there was aproblem with benzene. They couldn't make all the hoohs pair up.

One day, in a dream, the german chemist Kekule saw writhing  snakes and watched one of the snaked grab its own tail, forming a loop.

When he woke up he realised he had solve the benzene mystery.

The sequence below should further help you understanding how valency works and Kekule's dramatic inspiration.

 

 

 

 

[Imagine Everything]

On 11/5/2024 at 2:37 PM, studiot said:

People have insights all the time.

Most of these come to nothing when a colleague says "Dont' be silly have you considered it weight ?" or somesuch.
Then the thinker has a facepalm moment.

I know right lol, I have had so many facepalm moments just reading about the things I thought might have been unique to my intial thoughts, just to find out that t wasn't new information by any stretch.

You can't see me obv but yes my face turned a nice bright red.

However, as we have and continue to go through things (I hope) and I understand more or am taught/shown more, I have to say I find it a bit strange? that I seem to have 'seen'? some things that you guys and girls have already mastered and become experts in when my knowledge about physics simply didn't exist. At all. (I do know much more now though, tysm )

Wanted to say too that I've mentioned my education or lack of a few times, not because I'm thick, it was just to illustrate where my knowledge is (or was) at really. Another reason why I find my idea a bit strange.

Please don't take that the wrong way, I am by no means saying "ooh look at me wow wow", no not all. I hope I haven't come across like this.

I just find it strange, kind of supernatural ish?. Eerie perhaps?

Hopefully I'll keep learning more as we go along if you are both / all kind enough to help me.

 

On 11/5/2024 at 2:37 PM, studiot said:

So firstly binding energy.

A nucleon is a name for particles we find in the nucleus of an atom  -  protons and neutrons.

When nucleons club together in certain ways they form nucleus.

The energy that holds the club together is called the binding energy.

Now each element has a differnt binding energy and if we divide each of these energies by the number of nucleons in that particular nucleus we find something interesting.

The binding energy per nucleon is not constant over the range of elements.

In fact there is a definite maximum bining energy per nucleon if we plot a graph over the range of elements.

 

 

The element with the most binding energy per nucleon is Iron (Fe).

I have drawn by hand a red dotted lin on the plot. It is meant to be straight and forms the divide between whether we can get energy from fusing nuclei together on the left or energy from breaking them apart on the right.

Thanks to you and Modreds help, I actuall think I moderately understand this.

Immidiately I recognised Hydrogen, Helium, Carbon and Iron and Uranium and also their atomic mass?

Is binding energy the same as Nuclear force or is Nuclear force a type of binding energy?

And if Nuclear force is a type of binding energy, does that mean that Nuclear, weak, Gravitational & Electromagnetical are binding forces?

Or are they just the four fundamental forces and there are even more types of binding forces?

 

Am I also right to understand that left side (not inc Fe) is a graph of our sun nova'ing to it's last state as Iron can't fuse into something as it requires energy and doesn't produce it?

And lastly on this on, Uranium can only come from stella? solar mass >9 -> 20 of our solar mass?

I hope I said that last one right but please let me know the correct way if not.

Ok so I'm struggling a bit with valencey, so if I may, I took the following extract from the following link

https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/An_Introduction_to_the_Electronic_Structure_of_Atoms_and_Molecules_(Bader)/06%3A_The_Chemical_Bond/6.04%3A_The_Quantum_Mechanical_Explanation_of_Valency

Helium atoms in their ground state do not form a stable diatomic molecule. In fact, helium does not combine with any neutral atom. Its valency, that is, its ability to form chemical bonds with other atoms, is zero.

Does C have a valency because its atomic mass is divided by 3?

On 11/5/2024 at 2:37 PM, studiot said:

Finally we have a time when chemists had analysed many carbon compounds and understood that the valency of carbon is 4 and that of hydrogen 6.
They further understood that carbon atoms would use one or more of these valency 'hooks' to join to other carbon atoms perhaps in 'chain's of carbon atoms instead of using all of them to join to hydrogen atoms.

But there was aproblem with benzene. They couldn't make all the hoohs pair up.

One day, in a dream, the german chemist Kekule saw writhing  snakes and watched one of the snaked grab its own tail, forming a loop.

When he woke up he realised he had solve the benzene mystery.

The sequence below should further help you understanding how valency works and Kekule's dramatic inspiration.

That last part where he linked them in a circle is amazing. Truly. I'm guessing no one had ever thought like that before he saw it?

I'm trying to make sense of what I see in this diagram now. I see how the atoms are linked, chained and connected which is extremely interesting (I'll explain if I can after this) and so it poses a question

I am obviously still way out of my depth so forgive the naivety please

Can all atoms, whatever they are (as long as they are attracted) behave in this seemingly logical but also possibly & maybe endlessly random shaped ways?

Oh and I keep forgetting to ask but do all attracted atoms have to be fused together undewr tremendous force such as Novae or hadron colliders?

Can some occur just by simply being near or next to each other?

lololol sorry one more please,

Is fission the merger of atoms into other atomic compostions (are they still atoms? or atomic states when this happens?)

And fusion (using your diagram definitions) is the release of energy.

Have I been saying fusion incorrectly too up to now?

Edited 21 hours ago by Imagine Everything
edited

[studiot]

On 11/5/2024 at 2:37 PM, studiot said:

The element with the most binding energy per nucleon is Iron (Fe).

I have drawn by hand a red dotted lin on the plot. It is meant to be straight and forms the divide between whether we can get energy from fusing nuclei together on the left or energy from breaking them apart on the right.

I owe you a big apology as I got it wrong on the plot, but correct in the text did you notice ?

 

Fission and fusion are the wrong way round on the plot.

 

2 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

That last part where he linked them in a circle is amazing. Truly. I'm guessing no one had ever thought like that before he saw it?

I'm trying to make sense of what I see in this diagram now. I see how the atoms are linked, chained and connected which is extremely interesting (I'll explain if I can after this) and so it poses a question

I am obviously still way out of my depth so forgive the naivety please

Can all atoms, whatever they are (as long as they are attracted) behave in this seemingly logical but also possibly & maybe endlessly random shaped ways?

Oh and I keep forgetting to ask but do all attracted atoms have to be fused together undewr tremendous force such as Novae or hadron colliders?

Can some occur just by simply being near or next to each other?

lololol sorry one more please,

Is fission the merger of atoms into other atomic compostions (are they still atoms? or atomic states when this happens?)

And fusion (using your diagram definitions) is the release of energy.

Have I been saying fusion incorrectly too up to now?

See above for fission and fusion.

Both can release energy for the right reaction, but elements from iron to beyond uranium need to break apart (fission) to release energy. Elements from Hydrogen to iron need to join together (fusion) to release energy.

Conversely it take energy input to split a nucleus smaller than iron and energy to fuse together nuclei larger than iron.

Don't forget that it is the nuclei which break up or fuse together.

I will let Mordred tell you about the cosmology of fission and fusion.

It used to be thought that only carbon could form these long chains, but recent advances in Chemistry have discovered that other elements such as sulphur and silicon can also perform in this way.

 

No, no one could solve the problem before kekule.

 

[Imagine Everything]

56 minutes ago, studiot said:

I owe you a big apology as I got it wrong on the plot, but correct in the text did you notice ?

 

Fission and fusion are the wrong way round on the plot.

lol that image had me in stitches

Thats actually cool tbh, I picked up on the definitions in the graph and questioned it, so that I would learn.

And lol I read it and think it just made sense as the Kahn Academy lectures were ringing in my head about H fusing into He & He fusing into (crap can't remember without looking, must watch the lectures again lol, going to take a guess at) Neutrons?

I remember he said igniting then changed his mind to fusion, hence the question.

Sometimes I really do talk too much....

56 minutes ago, studiot said:

It used to be thought that only carbon could form these long chains, but recent advances in Chemistry have discovered that other elements such as sulphur and silicon can also perform in this way.

That is cool and immediately my mind starts wondering if more things can be made this way or even indeed in a much vaster more complex scale, chained/linked configuration.

56 minutes ago, studiot said:

No, no one could solve the problem before kekule.

What an interesting brain he had to have had to dream the answer. hmm

On a seperate note, I'm curious

@studiot What does vibration mean to you? How do you define it yourself? Do you understand it as an entity? A motion? A massless energy wave?

 

@MordredWhat does vibration mean to you? How do you define it yourself? Do you understand it as an entity? A motion?

A massless energy wave?

 

It'd be nice to hear both your thoughts on this please.

Thanks as always

 

3 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

I'm trying to make sense of what I see in this diagram now. I see how the atoms are linked, chained and connected which is extremely interesting (I'll explain if I can after this) and so it poses a question

Almost forgot, this is related to the vibration question I asked you both.

With all the collisions, fusions, reppelling and so on, does this cause and or create vibrations and possibly different colliding vibrations, vibrations that could also repell so on and on.?

Is that a stupid/naive question?

Do vibrations have boundary conditions?

I must go now now, my head feels a bit

Have a good night

Edited 17 hours ago by Imagine Everything

[Mordred]

Vibration means any oscillating state. For example a spring in motion is a form of vibration. Sound waves generate vibrations.

Fusion in Cosmology occurs during stsr formation but on a cosmological scale doesn't occur. The early atoms such as deuterium, hydrogen and lithium will form once temperatures cool down sufficiently.

Now that Studiot went through the chemistry aspects let's try an example of why you need cooling.

Take a proton it wants to have an electron in orbit due to charge. However the universe at high temperatures has tons of other particles moving about.

So say the proton captures an electron. Now another particle comes along and knocks that electron out of orbit. The particle that does this is irrelevant. The only requirement is that it delivers enough force ( in energy equivalence 13.5 ev.)

The above is an example of ionization. Cosmic rays can for example ionize neutral hydrogen in the same manner. If the Cosmic rays produce 13.5 ev the electron in the outer shell can get removed from  the atom.

In terms of fusion you require pressure and temperature.  To reach ignition you must meet the Lawson criteria which will vary depending on the composition.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawson_criterion

 

Unfortunately most decent articles on nucleosythesis gets rather high level mathematics for example

https://astro.uni-bonn.de/~nlanger/siu_web/nucscript/Nucleo.pdf

But you will notice the article describes different binding energies for several different atoms.