CHAPTER 18

 

 

            ENERGY AND MASS RELATIONSHIPS        

  • NUCLEAR TEMPERATURE AND PRESSURE--------------------------653
  • NUCLEAR DEGREES OF FREEDOM-------------------------------------654
  • SPECIFIC SUB FERMION PARTICLE DENSITY (Sp)-----------------655
  • FISSION, FUSION PART 1 AND---------------------------------------------656

                ENERGY MATTER EQUIVALENCE

 

Note: AMO refers to atomic matter objects, Atomic degrees of freedom (DOF) changes result in proportional pressure changes (with all else remaining equal). Other terms may not be understood until taken in context with the whole thesis.

 

 

It has been necessary to wait until this juncture for the forthcoming phenomenological analysis. I would consider that the following treatise might hopefully engender some mental emancipation from entrenched traditional mindsets; also assisting by way of answering some objections that you may have already arrived at regarding the overall theory. Such clarification might just be the catalyst required.

The following is a fundamental analysis of atoms in a closed system, unless it either becomes otherwise obvious or where it is actually indicated.

Even though electrons are significant players in the particle scene and crucial to most atomic phenomenology, in this initial regard, atomic bonds are to be discounted and also the electron involvement in B decay. Note: The particles mentioned below are actually sub particles (bosons) and below which are not subject to QIP/PEP or F-D statistics; and all energy trans-missions are considered to include electrons and BBR.

I will first begin by reiterating the conclusion by G-theory that energy is not real 'stuff'. At this point I would only confuse the issue by addressing such things as the matter quality of 'trions'; subjective versus substantive and qualitative versus quantitative, so I won't.

I take the line, as per classical physics, that energy per se, can be evaluated by the measure of the rate of transference of objects of matter by spatial motion. This includes the spatial motion content of particle vibration and notional 'spin' because in those cases, a rate of motion (momentum) is still observed (E=hf). Note: This is speaking of energy in the broad sense as the rate of using or carrying energy as doing of work or the potential to do work, because the idea of a particular quantity of energy being carried as a static intrinsic mass component is not permitted by G-theory--- and this precludes M-E equivalence.

The mass may subjectively be considered to be 'being carried' but in quantum phenomenology, occurrences at emission and reception do not apply as they'd be expected to do in classical physics.

We have already concluded that the causes of (T mass) or 'mass' per se, are from G-mass by GTD etc. N-mass by AIR; and some P-mass conditionally related to PIR.  Both of the first two are able to exhibit a combined N-mass. We should bear in mind that P-mass is not necessarily additive to the derived G and N being the overall T mass of AMO's which is (among other reasons) why the addition of a massive number of photons from an external heat source has no significant affect on the T mass of an AMO, and why the gravitational acc rate is only 9.81m/s/s etc. Note: 'Mass' is derived from actions and it is never considered to simply be a summation of some notionally static G-mass, N-mass and P-mass.

This is because photons only have an infinitesimally realizable N-mass which is only conditionally exhibited at a point of assimilation into AMOs.  That mass is only describable by being evidenced as 'slight perturbative and graviton interactive affects' -which can't show any ME equivalence- and once back within the quark lattice, they are not in turn affected by gravitons so they have zero G-mass, zero N-mass and now zero P-mass. This of course means that paradoxically they no longer exhibit any mass at all even though a transfer of energy is evidenced by a temperature rise in the receiving atom. Note: Even though a photon here is thought to be acting according to non F-D statistics when traveling (except at the event horizon of the quark lattice), it is now fully contained within a state of B-E statistics within the quark lattice and has become dissimilated into single bosons similar to those which are shown diagrammatically herein as photons and gravitons and possibly sea gluons.

Therefore we are able to conclude that photons have absolutely no realizable mass within an atom unless (if at all proportionally exhibited) in a transitional state outside the quark lattice. However sub particles in motion (read photons) outside of a nucleon are considered to contain some kinetic energy* and therefore 'mass', so by this we can see that not even sub particles (read bosons and boson packets) escape the laws of classical physics as they are allowed to do by the current paradigm -under which I agree in principle for explanation- they are only required to obey wave distribution type statistics but then they present with some serious mass problems.

A particle is only able to lose amplitude and maintain the same energy if it has received energy proportionality by the addition of extra trions. The loss of amplitude in the wave distribution parameter has been converted to matter but not mass. Note: Refer to the section on graviton transitional mechanics where the graviton maintains the wave statistics but loses matter (trions) and /or velocity which is visa versa.

Quantum particles can't disobey the laws of the conservation of energy as the current paradigm proposes. For example; if a particle tunnels through a barrier and in so doing loses amplitude, it is the barrier which must suffer loss by transference of energy sub particles to the greater particle under consideration for it (particle) to be declared to still have the same energy as before. 'Energy' is able to be transferred from one form to another. Any idea that a barrier is exempt from the laws of physics is also refuted.  Wave statistics to sub fermion matter VM multiplex state and visa versa is a valid energy transformation phenomenon.

Under the current paradigm then the photon-receiving atoms (electrons?) must be deemed to be capable of performing a 'miracle' wherein a large amount of notional wave energy is able to be transferred in or out of an AMO without a corresponding change in the AMO's mass which is any way significant let alone proportional to the observed temperature change. Here is just one more enigma of physics (in direct defiance of its known laws as well as the notional M-E equivalence). There is no known quantum state relativistic explanation that allows any unification with classical physics, G or S relativity or M-E-E**. Once more, G-theory is singularly able to offer the solution.

*Some kinetic energy can become exhibited at very high temperatures when the eos is abrogated and interdimensional collisions occur.  This is evidenced as a mild interaction when electron and photon beams collide, or even more energetically when massive photonic absorption and reemission occurs. This could mean that many of the absorbed photons only fleetingly occupy the transitional state within nucleons and they subsequently disrupt atomic integrity by AIR phenomenology in the elastic process of attempted transitioning. In this event they predict the amazingly substantial value of their actual kinetic energy. Evidence of this can be drawn from such diverse phenomena as nucleon ringing and a cutting laser and the laser activated pellet fusion previously described. The jury is still out on the Crooke's radiometer.

 

**In that paradigm light is an EMR wave which already operates under electromagnetic tensor wave statistics. An ambiguity exists if another infinite stress tensor called time is admitted to allow the banishment of light into a complete time cessation boundary or disjunct which would be the necessary case. Which tensor do we choose as the true and which is the disjuncted? When? It can't be both place and time simultaneously. The Haag-Lopuszanski-Sohnius theorem prevents the answer from being any of the above, so Poincare space-time symmetries and quantum symmetries are therefore declared to be incompatible so unification of quantum physics with general relativity under the current paradigm of the understanding of the universe is severely problematical.

 

 

NUCLEAR TEMPERATURE AND PRESSURE:

 

The contention of G-theory only requires that the bosons don't follow QIP/PEP so their statistical distribution at any given energy state is different than for electrons for instance, which being fermions, are subject to PEP. That fact has been concluded by experimentation. Also remember the black and silver spinny thingy? Even photons may exhibit a kind of linear kinetic energy and therefore are able to conditionally exhibit a surprising component of N-mass. However most of their mass must be concluded to be P-mass and they are able to derive G-mass which can be mistaken for their own mass--- careful! Note: Refer to the preceding footnote.

Again with some iteration: Even though these boson packets have a PIR caused N-mass; that mass is not applicable when they are resident within a quark lattice (and this is the main reason that photons don't contribute to the mass of an AMO) because they both then have zero elasticity while the bosons reside in the femtospace, and as we previously noted, it is elasticity* which allows the observance of AIR elicited (inertial) mass by acc/dec. In addition to that, they (bosons in the Q-L) can also be considered to neither posses nor contribute to GTD nor G-mass because of vacuum modifying dimensional constraints as well. This means that a photon does indeed only have mass when moving outside a nucleus and its reception into a nucleon will mostly be observed by us as a temperature rise, but now you know why. Note: In the real world everyday sense the energy produced by light reception is generally convected and lost by BBR and not photonic re-emission. Sunlight shining on your skin and warming it up is the most noticeable proof of this phenomenon, although note should be taken of the fact that you can also 'see' you arm etc.

*Although the quark lattice is believed to be inelastic the ultra-weak force that holds a nucleon together is not. In fact it is likely to be very elastic. Inelasticity in a quark lattice doesn't make any proposed 'brittleness' any concern to its integrity because it is cocooned within the nucleon by the elastic ultra weak force bosons.

 

An electron has slight P-mass but almost zero G-mass because of similar dimensional constraints. The conclusion that we can draw here is, that the mass of a neutron doesn't change only because of the mass of a lost electron during B- decay. Any lost G-mass component of T-mass is caused by the fact that the newly formed proton MUST now move to a new position in its nuclear matrix, and this causes a change in the overall GS -and therefore G-mass- of the new nucleus. I.e. as in 14C decay to 14N. This then results in a noted T mass 'deviation' between both of those particular nuclides, and it must be stated that during such isotopic changes, protons don't usually touch each other. Note: Has anyone ever weighed a singularly existing nucleon?

 

 

 

NUCLEAR DEGREES OF FREEDOM:

 

Now we will discover that temperature, pressure and 'degrees of freedom'* at the nuclide Q-L level, are related.

*DOF within the confines of metallic elements at the nucleon level has already been addressed.

 

Atomic temperature is simply the measure of the number of sub fermion particles (SFPs) per unit volume ('n' per 'v'), per single nucleon which exist in its quark lattice femtospace*. We can change the unit volume slightly and inversely proportionally by a change in SFP pressure, which also causes a proportional change in the SFP's DOF**. Similarly, if we were to change the quantity of SFPs by heating or cooling, the other two would see a proportional change as well. Note: It may be of interest that physicists were astounded at the number of particles that were emitted during ion collisions in the LHC. The ions would have been at extremely high temperature, ---having collected energy as bosons while they were accelerated. The actual particle count in nucleons approaching BST could be even trillions more per nucleus.

*This includes the singularly constant 'n' of GRAVITONS that ALWAYS EXIST in the cosmean femtospace in order to provide a perturbative and constant GTD related specific G-mass in all nucleons at STP or in real world evaluations.

 

**Don't get confused. Even though this predicates a density; this is not directly proportional or directly related to Avogadro and the mole, even though temperature does indeed have an affect on those phenomena. Even specific heat 'c' has no place in this analysis because we are dealing here with SFP's per single nuclide Q-L femtospace volume and not atoms per unit volume, unless of course if we could have a gaseous form of (uncharged) 1H ions (protonium).

Having said that; it will be shown that the SFP ('n' per 'v') is significantly and proportionally related to DOF which in turn proportionally relates to temperature. This therefore also makes it applicable in some proportionality to the SIZE of an atomic nucleus due to changes in the B-E statistical wave function MODE dimensions of these SFPs*^*. (I.e. quark lattice volume) by nucleon force sharing under pressure whereby -at any relatable temperature- SFP is inversely proportional to atomic number, so as well as specific heat and density at the nuclear level. Boyle and Avogadro do indeed enter the picture when gaseous AMO variants are under consideration.

 

*^*The wave function frequency or and amplitude/s don't change by any subsequent change in the 'Bn' number of thermostatic bosons existing in the femtospace. Perhaps it is the volume of that Q-L cosmean entity that undergoes a necessity to change in proportion. However any proposal of a change in the volume (I.e. the mode length) by any changes to the actual lattice 'Bn' as color charge and/or DOF related pressure and femtospace volume is impossible and it will therefore require a change to the internal cosmean DOF in order to maintain the lattice volume, and so photon emission and or BBR will be the result. Otherwise such would only be expected to occur under extremes of external pressure near BST and the wave function would then cease rather than promote any change to the volume of any femptospace.

Simply put: This is all subject to external temperatures and vacuum-pressures (read parity resolution force) and the only action possible is for the enforcement by the appropriate statistical principle (in this case B-E statistics) to result in an instantaneous change in the boson 'n' in order to PRESERVE the Q-L wave function according to the B-E statistics.

Such an expulsion -or self scavenging-* of bosons will be seen as a drop in temperature and visa-versa. However the initial 'perfect' temperature measurement is counter-intuitively an observation of the outward motion of the expunged photons and the actual result is a cooling of the nucleon. This will be noted later as (higher order extensionally) a subsequent cooling of a gas back to parity in accordance with 'the zeroeth law'. The energy involved might not appear to match the particle transferences.

If all the available bosons were expelled and there were no bosons available in the vicinity for re-assimilation then the nucleon would be at or close to zero k because there would be no photonic traffic (or not to forget BBR convection) to measure and once again the wave function would cease.

In the case of double electron capture and the auger effect and similar decays the scavenging of extra particles may not be noticed and would occur by Bremsstrahlung gamma quantum and the standard model may not be seen to be upheld.

In fact the lepton number may quite often be declared to be violated because the energy conservation law might not appear to be upheld but it all should be back in order by the time parity is reached. The laws are in fact not being violated its just that not all particles involved are in plain sight at any given time.

These are unknown VM transitional problems and you may visit the subject of chiral anomalies, dirac sea and sea gluons at your own peril. I have addressed that subject in other places.

 

 

 

 

SPECIFIC SUB FERMION PARTICLE DENSITY (Sp):

 

 

We are able to arrive at a formula for a femtospace SFP density constant for any element at any given temperature. The formula is---

Sp=Am.t.p/Cv

 

--- where Sp* is Specific SFP density--- Am is atomic density (mass) in kg/m3 ---and Cv is constant volume specific heat (which is proportional to Bn and inversely proportional to everything else)**--- 't' is temperature (in degrees Kelvin)--- and 'p' is pressure, all in related terms.

This constant is being derived with a proportionality to temperature but I am unable to relate temperature to the formula with any degree (pun not intended) of certainty because no actual calculation of the relative particle densities seems likely unless we can know the absolute upper temperature of BST whereby we can have a true calculation of actual particle density in any case, so Sp it is.

I Would utilize Boltzmann's constant if I was dealing with a particular gas but I am analyzing nucleons here. Note: this is declared to all exist in a vacuum or else the external gaseous pressure is held constant otherwise the gaseous atomic DOF will change which in turn will affect the DOF of the actual quark lattices within their own nucleons and upset the F-D statistics. For this analysis the dictum 'all else being equal' applies because my intent here is in explaining the internals of nucleons and not the behavior of gasses.

*This new term Sp now replaces 'n' per 'v' and SFP.

**Refer to chapter 22 for the true relationship of these terms.

 

By this formula we calculate that U has an Sp of 164.24 and its theoretical decay product lead has an Sp of 89.29 at the same temperature of 1o k. This of course means that if uranium could possibly decay directly to lead in a fission bomb it would radiate the surplus SFPs to the environment, which can be seen to be a very significant (almost half) loss of radiated 'matter-energy' and a proportionally greater fission event would ensue if that were the case. However we know such hypothetical decay doesn't happen of course, and the above is just a simplistic example.

We must understand that the incredible value of the enrgy available from fission isn't just from neutron decay components but mostly from the BBR resulting from the change in the Sp of the daughter isotopes in comparison to the mother element. This implies that if we were to catalize fission reactions in a reactor then we should be able to improve the calorific output. As we will shortly see. This can be achieved by fusion catalyzing. Note: That last statement has been added later (11-2014) but it was implied by the following article regarding fusion and fission which was written prior to 2011.

Note also: This calculation can't be carried out for plutonium isotopes because its specific heat as well as that of its decay products is unknown. However we are able to draw the conclusion that atoms decay to other atoms with a lower Sp at any given temperature because Am is a multiplier in the equation, and they will therefore emit surplus SFPs and other radiation in the process. Also note that alpha particles carry away a small and probably insignificant Sp as well. Take note in the fusion example which follows.

 

 

 

FISSION, FUSION PART 1 AND 'ENERGY' MATTER EQUIVALENCE:

 

There is a perplexing problem within current atomic physics whereby the energy formulas for nuclear fission and fusion do NOT bear out in practice, (even with consideration given to the Maxwell Boltzmann distribution) and that the energy output of 'wannabe' nuclear fusion reactors is substantially less than it should be. In fact, and in accordance with G-theory, the reaction can only be sustained by the continuous input of energy. Many specious reasons have been given in vain attempts to explain this palpable dilemma.

Conventional nuclear physics wrongly explains nuclear fission by the idea that the sum of the masses of the daughter nuclei are less than the sum of the mass of the mother nuclei and the lost mass has therefore been converted into energy by E=mc2. That's all going to sound cute in hindsight but now; and in collusion with the assertation above, I will give a more reasonable explanation of fission by G-theory.

 Because of this theorizing of a proposed Sp (which is also applicable to lower generation particles down to but not including indivisible trions within a Q-L) we can now consider other reasons for the energy output of fission.

Firstly we must note that even in fission reactions, individual metallic atoms of the fissionable material require a particular space requirement for their own DOF. I.e. it is likely to be somewhat similar to the volume of a mole of a gas at STP* but which has no relationship to the sizes of the variously involved neutrons.

When splitting metallic atoms during fission this relationship is NOT deemed to be proportional to a linear summative process as it is with gases whereby one mole of any gas occupies 2.4 liters at STP, and in any case if the volume is kept constant then an increase in temperature and pressure will be the result.

*Refer to the section dealing with G-theory molar relationships in Chapter 22.

 

In substantiation of this it becomes very noticeable in an uncontrolled runaway fission reaction that both pressure and temperature do increase. Even in a nuclear reactor there is an almost instantaneous but conditional temperature and pressure increase which quickly extends to the environment and in a reactor the environment is the liquid -whereby the pressure is never allowed to be fully observable- which is being heated for power generation purposes.

However without the coolant, a rapid increase of temperature occurs at the naked fuel rod event horizons, with a resulting increase in temperature around them. If the system were to be left uncooled, the pressure would very quickly build beyond the design parameters and an explosion (not fission) could soon ensue. Note: With current fuel rods the enrichment is kept low to avoid such a possibility and so a meltdown is the worst expected result. Any otherwize observable results in support of G-theory would unfortunately be overwhelmed by such gaseous expansion mechanics.

At this point you may object that the particulate Sp of the fissioning object must have decreased and therefore there should be an observable decrease in temperature. I agree that this would be notionally the case except that the proportionally increased instantaneous environmental pressure in the containement vessel is restricting the DOF and attempting to reduce the Sp of the newly formed atoms. If the pressure could be instantaneously released and kept at the same value then, without the mechanics of the fission events themselves; yes you would actually observe a decrease in temperature but only in the nucleons themselves and not immediately in the external environment. Therefore in the real world the emission products cause temperature measurement to show a relatively gradual rise and the new fission products would be likewize heated up by parity mechanics/convection etc. So motion declared energy and a rise in temperature it is. Note: Sp is proportional to Am and so it is to some degree inversely proportional to summated nuclear binding force but not fully relatable to G-mass or hence atomic weight. However that's of little consequence here.

By way of a simpler iteration: Because it takes a little thing called time and the mechanical impossibility for the new atoms to get out of each others way in a timely fashion, so to speak, there is a necessarily great and observable pressure increase because of the sustained fission reaction which is severely restricting the DOF of atoms as well as attempting to cause a similar restriction in the internal DOF of SFPs. However we now understand that the Sp, regardless of any change in temperature, pressure, C, and Am can't be arbitrarily changed without a resulting transference of SFPs, and in the case at hand this forces the emission of photons etc. which causes a temperature rise in the surrounding environment which in turn just adds to the pressure.

In the working reactor the heat is transferred out to do the work required or to be 'bled off'. However the transfer of this pressure to the atmosphere (or space) over an extremely short period of time in a nuclear fission explosion is observed as a shockwave. As just explained; this effect is greatly mollified in a reactor wherein it wouldn't really be noticeable.

However in a runaway chain reaction fission event this all becomes complicated by the elastic but outward kinetic motion of the new atoms themselves as well as other -including original mother- nuclides and particles which are propelled outward at great velocity in the process.

The salient point regarding the loss of mass is that it is concluded to be mainly due to the loss of nucleons in the fuel, due to the emission of alpha particles and neutrons as well as the expulsion of a vast quantity of SFPs in order to maintain Sp, and the total mass itself hasn't just been magically converted into energy by E=mc2, even though a great quantity of massless particles as SFP's were emitted. As the new elements cool the resulting change in their combined Sp -because of a change in C*- will result in them receiving back all of the lost SFPs** from the environment by the zeroeth law. So they didn't lose any energy as 'mass' at all! ---just matter as AMO, fermion and sub fermion particles. Temperature was just the measure of BBR transmission in all forms.

*Refer to Ch. 22.

**Including cosmic particles, neutrons and even gamma particles.

 

This first conclusion can be explained more simply by the understanding that each nucleon has a conditional substantive 'mass' in its own right, and the lost radiated energy is caused by the Sp change statistics and the subsequent emission of all kinds of particles. The mass and energy have nothing to do with each other except that the event does cause a noticeable loss of mass and a release of energy as the motion of particles, and if you were none the wiser regarding these differing phenomena you might attempt to look for a common equivalence relationship between the two.

Traditional nuclear science has fallen into this trap but failed miserably in the endeavor to actually confirm their M-E equivalence principle due to many conflicts with other relationships. However the refutation of this 'mass-energy equivalence' per se is another subject which is treated elsewhere in this book.

 

 

FUSION CATALYZED FISSION

 

When we come to nuclear fusion preempted by a fission explosion we realize an amplification of this event which is by modified square law, and it is this that makes a fusion event APPEAR to be FAR more energetic than the fission event alone.

Before we proceed we should note that by the equation derived above the calculated Sp of hydrogen is 0.62e-5 (0.00006.2) and for 4H it is (0.000248), while the Sp of helium (as well as that of an alpha particle) is 0.343e-4. (0.000343) In that case if hydrogen becomes fused into helium then the helium needs to gain some SFPs to undergo an Sp change from 0.000248 to the higher quantitative value of 0.000343 in order to remain at the same temperature*. Either that or it will be subject to a REDUCTION in temperature and therefore pressure by having a lower Sp than required at the same temperature.

*Calculating this at 10k in theoretically perfect isolation makes no difference to the conclusions that are drawn. That just prevents the calculation of environmentally affecting actual realizable energy which is not the object of this analysis.

 

I can now make the case that nuclear fusion actually USES energy which is evidenced by a necessary input of temperature (read SFPs) and  pressure (to cause such fusion), but at the same time I can state that such fusion paradoxically causes a massive temperature and pressure increase in return by the ejection of greater particles (neutrons) so by that reason it can act as a CATALYST to enable a more dynamic and far more complete fission event which vastly overcomes the substantive energy decrease due to the fusion alone. In this way an explosive fission-fusion event is far greater than a fission event by itself.

So we can conclude here that nuclear fusion alone requires more energy input than it releases. It is a dud bomb. It is a dud energy source; surprisingly even in stars. The fusion in stars is actually fueled by gravity! This will be completely analysed in the next chapter. There will be no fusion energy realizable on Earth. Best we look to LFTR or such type reactors for clean energy huh?

It must be understood that a fission bomb alone only exhibits the fission of a part of its fuel. This is an important fact which can be substantiated by the amount of fissionable material let over as radioactive 'mother' particles (and even lumps) after the event.