G-THEORY thesis CH 19

CHAPTER 19

 

 

THE FINAL NAILS IN THE COFFINS OF THE CURRENT PARADIGM OF QUANTUM PHYSICS INCLUDING, M-E EQUIVALENCE AND E=mc2.

  • FISSION AND FUSION PART 2----------------------------------------------660
  • IMPORTANT CONCLUSION-------------------------------------------------667
  • THE G-THEORY PHENOMENOLOGICAL APPROACH------------673

IN ANALYSIS OF THE MASS DEFECT AND/OR

DISCREPANCY

  • THE CAUSE OF MASS DEFECT VARIATIONS-------------------------678

BY RELATIONSHIPS WITH MASS DISCREPANCY

  • GRAVITON FRICTION---------------------------------------------------------684
  • THE GREAT DILEMMA-------------------------------------------------------694

 

 

 

FISSION AND FUSION PART 2:

 

 

In contemporary nuclear physics the fusion process is explained by the sum of the masses of the fusing nuclei being greater than the sum of the masses of the new fused nuclei. This then supposedly releases 'energy' of the transformed mass by E=mc2.

Now the theory is that when 3H or 4H atoms and especially D&T together are placed in an environment capable of causing fusion (in this case catalyzed by runaway fission) they are squeezed together by the massive, almost instantaneous, increase in pressure. This reduces the gaseous DOF to a critical point of high pressure which results in the overpowering of the normal coulombic repulsion of the protons and they are then forced together by a force that's sufficient to cause them to come into contact and toggle them over to the attraction of the biracial strong binding force SBF (which occurs at about a distance of one femtometer and toggles back to repulsion at 0.7Fm so they hover at that distance yet they don't touch), but statistically half the protons so engaged should undergo beta positive decay to neutrons.

This phenomenon has no equal in standard quantum physics and the heavy water is unable to provide enough bound neutrons to account for the energy of the 'instantaneous' fusion. By G-theory we can envisage that the biracial gluons are constrained from further ingress into either nucleon because they have come up against the cosmean brane. Only an almost impossible force would be thought capable of causing such penetration to be a result. This of course allows us to determine that the cosmean brane has a thickness. Yes 0.7Fm, at which point the biracial force is at its strongest and force means energy because there is a change in motion. This means that there is enormous potential 'energy' in separated nucleons by the potential for recombination and even more by the potential for separation. Note: An initial result of such nucleosynthesis is very much the same as that which is observed in a fission reaction but by this different phenomenology whereby 'lost cosmic loop energy' is regained from the cosmea. This helps drive the incredible 'energy' observed during supernova events. When I at first mentioned that the cosmea was full of potential 'energy'. I did mean 'full'! Any supernova can be considered to be a micro 'creation event' in the sense that 'energy' is being derived directly from the cosmea*. During such evens much of the matter actually returns back to cosmean praetomic matter within any resulting black hole.

*There is no energy conservation violation because the cosmea will only supply back energy that has already been lost 'over the edge' and into black holes.

 

When considering fusion we must consider that it takes less 'energy' to cause fusion than that which is available from a fission bomb which is overkill. This in turn declares that much of the potential 'energy' in the universe still resides in the cosmea! There is your 'dark energy'. Another important takeaway here is that fusion requires the initial input of 'energy' as the means of providing the force required to overcome all the coulombic repulsive forces.  Then and only then will it give back!

At the instant of the provision of such a required force by the fission event, a massive increase in pressure ensues, and as a direct result of it, the hydrogen nuclei begin to emit photons slightly before any fusion has even occurred. This is because the DOF being reduced by increasing gaseous pressure causes a massive increase in temperature, by both Sp as well as gaseous compression and this overwhelms the atoms and attempts to cause an Sp deficit problem*.

This is essentially caused by an increase in the atomic Sp at the moment of fusion as well as some simultaneous force modification by the gaseous Boyle's law, which is because we now have a massive reduction in the number of gaseous atoms and the pressure almost instantly decreases to fit the reduced number of fused atoms into the same molar volume, however this is mostly ameliorated by the massive increase in temperature (SFP emission)** by the same law as well as in accordance with the Sp formula.

*In the case of nuclear fission this has nothing to do with the thermal de Broglie wavelength, and in any case after what we have just studied we are forced to ask; what has sub fermion density (Sp) got to do with gas density and behavior even if they can be seen to act simultaneously by the application of a common force? Note: Sp also applies to metallic nuclear DOF. Boyle's law applies to gases, whilst de Broglie thermal wavelength law applies to clouds of bosons. Avogadro has been seemingly ignored for reasons of simplicity only.

This therefore means that just prior to fusion the hydrogen isotopes possess an SFP Sp which is far far greater than that which is required at STP and even greater than the Sp required at that particularly high temperature and pressure, especially when including the thermal de Broglie wavelength formula (DBW) to any clouds of bosons that will be created.

**The classical physics tells us that by the 'zeroeth law of thermodynamics' the atoms will pass the excess particles to the environment by photon, emr and BBR and other SFP emission. The bosonic matter cloud emission is almost instantaneous because of the mechanics of B-E statistics, conditionally subject to DBW. Many of these SFPs will be instantly soaked up by fusing hydrogen isotopes as required.

 

Upon fusion we now paradoxically realize (in a static theoretical sense) a massive number of new 4He or 3He atoms which now require greater sub fermion particulate Sp than the hydrogen atoms that combined to constitute them in the first place. So we now have the case whereby, within the instantaneously evaluable closed system, the SFP Sp number is actually reduced along with only a slight increase in the 'DOF' requirement by the gaseous pressure phenomenon. Seeing that we should then actually end up with a cooling as well as an implosion in a purely molar sense, how then do we observe a massive burst of 'energy' and a rise in temperature and more importantly the resulting phenomenal explosion?

Answer: In the first place the fusion is occurring under the dynamic kinetic conditions of the massively increased temperature and pressure of the fission event. I.e. It is being fueled. Apart from the tremendous pressure, part of this initial 'energy' is actually USED to kinetically force the hydrogen isotopes to fuse together as described above, wherein such fission and fusion together results in a surplus of sub particles I.e. as well as a few surplus neutrons or two, you would notice that particles such as gluons and mesons would also exit the new helium nuclei as well as 'energy' in the form of bosons such as gravitons but mostly photons.

This may very well result in biracial perturbation which may result in some significant plasma states which as well as causing a massive increase in the photon count will actually cause a resulting helium atom count which would be substantially less than half the original hydrogen isotope count. Note: Caveat: As well as the emission of neutrons from B+ decay, some of the neutrons being emitted may actually have been converted from alpha to beta neutrons, some of which then undergo ß-decay and this balancing phenomenology leads us to conclude that around half the emitted neutrons may be destroyed and emitted as gamma particles and other sub particles of all descriptions including normal photons, electrons and positrons and not to forget BBR as trions.

In case you thought I was missing something, I have left the obvious to last:

The greatest contributor to the 'energy' of the explosion by the fusion event mainly results because of the necessary but conditional release of many more neutrons than there are new atomic nuclei, and most will be ejected at high velocities and 'energy' (about 0.2 'c') which consequently results in a massive transmitted (particulate) temperature increase into the surrounding environment and a resultant loss of mass by nucleon (neutron) depletion. Note: that's not M-E equivalence!

This of course is seen as 'kinetic 'energy'' which by definition is the amount of work being done by motion. A portion of the temperature you 'might' feel for an instant, would likely be caused by the large quantity of sub particles in various forms, from gravitons, photons and neutrons right through to whole nuclei and greater AMOs (being absorbed by your unfortunate body) just from the fusion process on is own.

Now the most critical and profound effect of this fusion event is that the fusion causes the release of a vast number of EXTRA neutrons which, by the very mechanics of fission, causes a huge increase in the rate and efficiency of the original fission event. This amplification is somewhat dependant on the amount and type of hydrogen isotopes as well as the type of fission fuel and construction mechanics utilized.

Such catalytic action can cause an explosion of an intensity that's thousands of times greater than the original fission event by itself*. Note: The formation of isotopes of helium other than 4He would be unlikely, and in any case the half life of 5He which would be the most likely isotope is faster than any fusion event. In fact it is so fast that ideas of instantaneity come to mind.

*The formula E=mc2 can't arrive at such a result because there is barely any stable 'energy' available by the actual mass difference to enable such an 'energetic' explosion to occur. In fact the 'energy' is so pathetic that 2H won't even fuse to helium unless you have a 'stellar like' temperature and pressure available. In other words the process MUST BE  EXTERNALLY OR INTERNALLY ENERGIZED!

This is of profound importance wherein we are forced to recognize that stellar fusion has to be the result of graviton transitional gravity phenomenology, and it likely spells doom for the hopeful realization of fusion power generation for the grid. The three different energy production mechanism in the fusion process wouldn't all be easily calculable but down to earth nuclear fusion power generation isn't looking good. So all we can conclude is that the energy used equals the energy out at best. In that case fusion might just be an energy transfer mechanism to convert gravitational energy into light. Of course other high energy particles are also created but they are also sent to the environment as energy. What is surprising is the massive quantity of protons that are formed by B-ve decay during SME events.

 

Be that as it may; by using the typical 'energy' terms; the fusion of 2H+3H gives back 17.6 MeV +Neutron*. Compare this with the 200MeV of 'energy' produced by the individual fission of a single uranium nucleus which is in itself ONLY 0.09% of the available 'energy'. This leaves a lot of potential fissile material available for a catalyst to improve upon wouldn't you say?

*The 'energy' release of a hydrogen fusion bomb by E=mc2 also relies heavily on the specious assumption that all of the hydrogen isotopes are fully involved in the event. Because of the law of randomness, and the fact that stars have been vainly trying to fuse all of their fuel for billions of years I don't see how this can be concluded to be a sane conclusion.

 

By stellar observations alone we must appreciate that the involvement of the actual percentage of hydrogen isotopes in the fusion event must be concluded to be on the very low side*, in which case the idea of mass 'energy' equivalence is really beginning to show very poor prospects for consideration as even a passable fantasy. Note: Even by the 'energy' formula derived further on, M-E equivalence is only comprehendible as conditional to low temperatures and also if all of the physical matter is considered to have been reduced to gluons. In this case we would note that a uranium nucleus would have in the order of 1000TeV of potential 'energy' at 300ok but such deprecation to gluons isn't going to happen on our watch!

*Even if some magical quantum loop process could create more protons in the star. The particulate requirement as energy for such production would have to come from somewhere and traditionally we only see stuff going out and not in. Gravitons by G-theory--- is the only answer available.

 

However, and intriguingly paradoxical, even a small number of extra neutrons can amplify a fission event by a modified power law of some description with a 'neutron attack' phenomenology similar to the mechanics of the fission event itself, and by mathematical consideration any mathematician can see how that could easily lead to a thousand fold increases in 'energy' output. Wait there's more.

Even in an ordinary fire the insignificant and immeasurable mass difference between C and O2 etc and the mass of the resulting end products including the CO2 etc which are emitted, cannot in any way be proportionally applied to the 'energy' of the fire in Joules.

 

 

A CONCLUSION

 

By way of conclusion we can propose that fusion can NOT cause enough 'energy' to sustain itself. It can ONLY occur on earth under the right externally promotional conditions of temperature and pressure. This declaration would appear to be very problematical for the currently held theories of stellar fusion, but In the case of stars twinkling in the night sky under the predicates of G-theory there is no problem because by that model stellar fusion is proposed to be fundamentally caused by the agency of graviton transitions. Note: It must be recognized that changes in the nuclide matrices requires a proportionally greater pressure (read temperature) and kinetic 'energy' input with regard to increasing nuclide size. This is why the helium atoms don't all in turn fuse to calcium or carbon 12 in a nuclear fusion explosion on earth.

Another phenomenon may also be occurring during nuclear fusion events whereby some 'heavy alpha hydrogen' neutrons (Please refer to CH. 19) collide with such force whereby phenomenologically, two alpha neutrons undergo positive decay to form a single beta neutron (by a distorted and non effective nucleon-synthesis) which attaches to a hydrogen proton at the very moment it (Beta neutron) itself undergoes ß-ve decay to a proton etc. This could form a 2He helium isotope and as a result it emits decay particles as a muon and pion and we now have additional fusion of the fusion products of the original forced fusion event.

Don't ask me for the Feynman diagram, which I could give, but it would be slightly different than the current paradigm's version which the jury is still out on*. These decay particles would quickly decay further to a massive quantity of electrons, positrons, gamma particles, neutrinos, and trions as well of course, other photons by Bremsstrahlung radiation and such a phenomenon would vastly increase the light and 'energy' output of the fusion event in any case and there would be nasty gamma particles to deal with.

*For instance how can a pion of either charge (or neutral??), which supposedly decays to an electron and anti-neutrino or positron-neutrino, either positively or negatively react with either a proton or a neutron as the case may be, and convert either one to the other as is currently supposed? It has come to be noted under the traditional paradigm that some sub particles don't always behave as predicted, and I consider that to be very problematical for the status quos and not just a foible of quantum physics as indicated in the throwaway line. "Oh quantum physics doesn't comply with classical physics laws."

In one contemporary paradigm a pion is thought to be the missing 'mass' of a neutron that somehow decays into an electron and anti-neutrino, and that's how we then end up with a proton-electron combo. The problem with that common theory and its proposed pion phenomenology is that it derives from the idea that a pion decays into an electron etc which is likely to be specious simply because of misinterpretation of the data. I.e. it could be that not every 1-ve particle is necessarily a pion or an electron* as is proposed!

Unfortunately for the counter argument for negative particles, is the realization that it seems to actually be much easier to recognize that not every 1+ve particle is a proton. Before we address that let's look at a couple of examples of 1-ve particles; these are ūūđ (-2/3 + -2/3 +1/3=-1) and the commonly accepted dū (-2/3+-1/3).

 A proton is notionally uud and it is supposed that a +ve pion is đu. However and very strangely, that arrangement in other submissions is also a positron and we can see by such confusion where the easy but flawed leap to call any dū 1-ve pion an electron when it is found existing outside of the nucleus it derives from. The unrecognized fact is; that the electron is required to be the ūūđ form or else we have a symmetry violation.

Even disregarding that logic; this then means that an electron must still at the very least remain as a pseudo-quark baryon arrangement (less the P mass of an anti-neutrino) which then places a big debunk in the lap of any idea of an electron being a single virtual charge point source. Also it would be nice to have it explained--- what on earth a (virtual reality) 'neutral' pion is, as the (proposed arbitrator of such a process in another related theory goes). Inherent in the first idea is the uncanny but inescapable notion that (similar to the positron-pion confusion scenario) an electron is actually a quark construct! Dare they actually call an electron a baryon or quark? Under any current theory that would be nonsense. In another sense however, such a proposal is actually supportive of G-theory. TBE

*Refer to 'negatron' in the thesis.

 

The necessary G-theory mechanics for the original concept would require a decay time and the decay would have to be; from pion as ūūđ to electron as ūūđ plus biracial gamma and -Ve particles) and this would still have to be 'dimensionally' subjugated by the -Ve particle which departs the scene by an unknown ejection mechanics (probably via vacuum modification via the eos)*. This time delayed decay would be necessary to allow time for the 1-ve particle to exit the 1+ve nucleus. If it were to become an electron inside the nucleus, it could never escape. I.e. Under the current understanding no 1-ve particle should be able to escape a 1+ve nucleus (which the neutral neutron would actually become by the single nucleon ß-ve decay process because of the inescapable coulombic attraction force. So in any case it would require the necessary facilitation of other particles or novel phenomenology to create or perceive the required conditions for the escaping electron to at least be considered to be able to maintain a relatively temporary neutral charge**.

The provided G-theory multiplex vacuum modification mechanics is the eminent proposal as a solution to this problem because it is already multi-dimensional which allows for coulombic charge abrogation by a dimensional disjunct rather than an 'inside the box' single minded time disjunct subjectivism, and the multiplex approach is not so unwieldy (impossible?) and it also derives strong support by the relevant proofs in the thesis. As well as that; perhaps there is a clue in the G-theory mechanics of ß-ve decay which suggests that neutrinos do have mass, and that the P mass component of the mass defect might actually be the mass of the lost -Ve. …Just a thought. TBE"

*Otherwise how does the electron ever physically escape the nucleus?

**This is the reason for the clumsy proposal for some (virtual) neutral pion. The particle emission statistics and the legality of symmetry both require another mechanics of resolution.

 

Further answers to the question: Why don't the helium atoms continue to fuse with each other or other atoms they come across?

Some that have been forthcoming in the literature include: We don't know--- The temperature isn't high enough--- The coulombic repulsion of larger nuclides is greater because they have more protons.

The last answer is mathematically self repudiating. The first one is a great and honest answer. I will go with the second being 'the temperature isn't high enough' but with a reason.

The first thing I wish to assume is it may well be a fact that such 'ultra' fusion may actually occur to an unknown degree during fusion events such as in a fusion bomb. This is because the temperature according to G-theory of particulate proportionality to temperature is, by probability statistics, not likely to be exactly even. I.e. there will be hot spots.

This comes about because, as we have previously noted, according to Sp; temperature is related to particle density and atomic size which in turn is proportionally related to the SBF and other particulate 'energy' requirements for any higher generational matrix changes which is necessarily required to allow a greater fusion event to occur.

 

 

 

 

IMPORTANT CONCLUSION:

 

As well as pressure or kinetic force, fusion alone requires temperature (read particle emmission) for its occurrence. This actually requires an 'energy' input by kinetic force which causes an increase in pressure by AIR reaction (inertia) to the impulse. Surplus particles may then be kinetically ejected to either cause more fission and resulting fusion and as in the case of the bomb, they are mostly kinetically ejected to the surrounding environment. I.e. the force squeezes and particles fly out and we read that as a temperature increase into the environment. Ouch!

There is no doubt in my mind that some fusion also occurs during a normal fission bomb event.

We can conclude that the lost mass in both cases is caused by the loss and decay of nucleons as either protons undergoing ß+ decay, neutrons, electrons as a whole or as their decay particles being gamma photons as well as alpha particles and other SFB's as the case may be, and it is not calculable by E=mc2. The lost temperature by the emission of photons and bosons and lesser particles of all descriptions is because of the reasons that I have just described.

A possible objection with regard to my take on fusion requiring an 'energy' input is likely to be by hailing back to E=mc2. If the stars such as our own sun are streaming particles into space and they continue to fuse at a fairly constant temperature, then doesn't it stand to reason that they are generating 'energy' by fusion according to Emc2?

Answer: This only stands to specious reasoning because 1/ perpetual motion or energy creation is in violation of the laws of thermodynamics and--- 2/ because the 'energy' and particle transfers by graviton transitions which cause the fusion temperature and pressure and the continuing ability to both fuse and emit particles, has not before been recognized. Also it must be understood that the sun is fusing higher level atoms with proportionality to any increase in temperature/pressure which helps it maintain a stable temperature. This is of course by the formation of new atoms that have a greater Sp. Note: In fact the fusion in stars began by the fusion of hydrogen isotopes of protium (1H) to deuterium (some of which is likely to be still occurring) and it moved up to higher level fusion from there as temperature increased by graviton assault. Of course this doesn't disallow the fusion of helium itself if the original primordial cloud of cosmological gas was helium.

Fusion in a star is caused by massive graviton 'energy' loss which causes a proportionally massive increase in temperature and pressure and this in turn causes fusion to occur. When the newly fused and 'hot' ions enter a cooler zone of reduced pressure (say at the surface of the star) they emit a vast quantity of particles in all directions. These we observe as light and solar wind.

The fusion will all eventually come to a halt when everything is fused into 60Fe (if it doesn't super-nive fist). It may be of comfort to understand that graviton transitions at current levels of GD are unable to increase the temperature and pressure in our own star sufficiently to cause greater fusion to occur. I.e. they can't provide sufficient particles to affect Sp fast enough in real time to enable that to occur.

 

 

 

Now we come to universal temperature per se:

It is very obvious that most atomic and molecular events that occur in the universe are temperature related, and unfortunately for we humans living in the temperature 'goldilocks' zones this becomes problematical if we ever intend to fiddle around with atomic nuclei, hopefully not like 'mad' scientists.

By modifying temperature and pressure we have historically been able to take advantage of certain nuclear matrix instabilities and create diamonds from graphite, split the atom, and we have also caused almost sustainable appearing fusion to occur at the basic level.

The theorized temperature Sp problem arises because it takes a particular temperature related SFP density within the nucleon sub particle repositories (Q-Ls) to cause the previously presented changes in the relevant nucleon Q-Ls. It is these lattices that govern the multiplex and therefore the fundamental properties and characteristics of atoms and in keeping the nucleon quark matrix at a constant volume it then affects eigenspace transformability as well as Sp by allowing a change in Bn by dimensional agency which allows some particles to now occupy the same space-time.

Graphite is only able to be changed to diamond by a precursive fundamental change in the nucleon matrix arrangement within the carbon nucleus, which is then reflected by well known processes to the consequently changed external atomic crystalline matrix form.

We all know of course that this requires a great deal of temperature and pressure. This is because in the temperature sense the diamond nuclides require more SFPs for the new DOF requirements. This also extends to atomic crystalline matrices, and this subject wasn't addressed in the previous analysis, which was only undertaken at the nuclear level. Pressure is required to enforce the possibility for protons to touch each other during the rearrangement of the nuclear matrix to the new form.

If that's not clear then another way of saying it is this: Because the AMO is NOT a gas, this process requires a large increase in the Bn to ratify the required (Sp)* and a significant decrease in the atomic DOF by the provision of a proportional temperature and pressure increase, respectively. This forces the quark lattice in each individual nuclei to (not necessarily simultaneously but) instantaneously snap gluons, quarks and mesons into completely different spatial relationships, which in turn causes dimensional shifts.

This results in forcing a few nucleons to change to other possible positions in the same nuclear matrix even if protons are forced to temporarily touch. Carbon is one such nuclide where this matrix transformation is possible without the need for the unearthly forces required for nucleosynthesis. Helium is another, and by a careful study of the possible elemental nucleonic crystalline matrices that I have theorized, I can conceive of no more. Note: Refer to nucleon matrix structure in CH 17.

*It should be remembered that the Sp or DOF have no affect on G mass.

 

Note: This matrix rearrangement without the agency of the extreme forces available in fission and re-fusion may only occur in atoms WHERE THE PROTONS ARE ABLE TO SHIFT WITHOUT TOUCHING EACH OTHER BECAUSE SUCH ACTIVITY IS CONDITIONALLY DISALLOWED BY COSMO-UNIVERSAL LAW. I.e. Protons cannot touch each other except by extreme anti-coulombic force in which case one of them will undergo ß+ decay to a neutron ASAP. However the possibility of fleeting contact is not to be discounted.

The labeling of a bunch of 1H ions as protium or protonium is a misnomer, because the protons will always remain apart until the temperature pressure relationship with increasing restriction on DOF results in them touching, and that abuses normal cosmo-universal law at STP. Such a situation can only occur in a constant state with pressure dependence at close to BST and the result is quark gluon plasma*, so don't hold your breath waiting for someone to drop a chunk of protium into you hand.

Please be advised that if the strong binding force was just two percent greater we wouldn't exist, because such an eventuality would result in the universal allowance for protons to readily come into contact because they could overcome the coulombic repulsive force. That's the true fine line between existence and non existence; not climate change! If anyone told me they were in the process of creating a 2He isotope I would have to suspect that either they were nuts or I'd be very worried indeed, and probably go 'fission' while I still could! Here we have another 'goldilocks' situation!

It is important to note that the temperature of a nuclear fission/fusion bomb is still only a very small percentage of the BST and the protonic contacts are helped by the agency of kinetic force of velocity. In that context we can declare that STP is very cold indeed, so the difference between the particle variances observed between AMOs at STP and those particles residing in the innards of an uncontrolled fission event is relatively small compared with the particle density (Sp) of atoms at close to BST.

*Quark gluon plasma is a cosmean multi-dimensional biracial state of matter whereby every quark is dimensionally relatable to every other quark by a gluon and this leads to the highest sub particle 'n' per 'v' (temperature) possible, and one could assume that this may have actually been the original cosmean state in the fundamental beginning! I wouldn't worry too much about the possible existence of matter at such an extreme temperature because nobody had thermometers back then.

 

This whole submission is also a refuting response to the common but specious idea that when an uncontrolled fission event occurs, the binding 'energy' of decaying nuclei is somehow (miraculously I guess) converted into photons. The idea of virtual 'energy' being released as photons (and even more miraculously by electrons that wouldn't even be existing around the ions) in order to recombine nuclei during a fusion event has already been ridiculed herein as preposterous. The above analysis displaces such mechanics from the level of the miraculous or magical to the realm of mundane physics.

An analysis of G-theory atomic fission phenomenology is somewhat similar to classical atomic physics except for a couple of differences.

G-theory suggests that all original universal atoms may have consisted of alpha neutrons*. Both fast alpha and beta neutrons are capable of causing fission but the extra neutrons released are always beta neutrons. These are capable of undergoing beta decay to essentially 1H hydrogen atoms, which they do. It is a known fact that case specific groupings of seemingly different neutrons are able to create heavier hydrogen isotopes. Up until G-theory the reasons have been unknown.

Now some of the neutrons will decay into positrons rather than electrons because of conditional and statistical errors according to the first law of physics. This phenomenon results in a lot of electrons and positrons in close proximity and a number of them recombine to form gamma particles, which are subsequently emitted at 'c'.

So in concluding this simplistic analysis we can see that apart from the loss of nuclear decay matter particles, including alpha, beta particles and some helium, we also have hydrogen isotopes of various descriptions, neutrons, electrons and gamma particles all departing the scene very rapidly indeed.

As well as that, the reforming of daughter atomic materials which have a lower Sp than the mother atoms causes the emission of photons and bosons of all descriptions. Note: The ratio of particle distribution is qualified case specifically.

* Refer to chapter 21.

 

All else being equal; temperature is proportional to the conditional Q-L boson density of elemental atoms and this is only summative to an insignificant degree to the overall particle density of a greater elemental AMO as P mass, specific gravity by summative nucleon number (An) and (closed system) pressure. Note: This only applies at temperatures below that which results in ionization of the atoms. The idea is that the particle density at STP and any other constant and relevant case is determined by both the nuclide size (read atomic number) and Sp, and it is the matrix filling arrangements which go a long way to explaining specific heat anomalies and these parameters may be able to be calculated by interrelated analysis of these phenomena. Such an undertaking is beyond the scope and abilities of this writer. It would require computer modeling.

At or around STP: For any given temperature, for any given element/molecule, all atoms require their own specific DOF (pressure) which is determined by the matter state they are in at any given time. However it may be true that the closer the temperature comes to zero k or BST, the p mass and G mass have more proportional differential significance by power law respectively. I.e. Super cold substances may have less inertial mass because of a loss of G mass due to a loss of SFPs in the quark lattice while the converse may be true near BST. In fact the temperature at which P mass and G mass would begin to have a divergent relationship would be somewhere below STP by an inverse power law such that the steep end of the curve which has the most effect is towards zero k. Does that mean another 'goldilocks' zone? That would be just too good to be true! Note: individual particle p mass is far from being summative as resultant G mass.

I suggested earlier that E=mc2 is only true at absolute zero and substantive experimentation may be showing that to be the likely predicate because of the idea that inertial mass may be lost the closer an AMO comes to zero k. however this is not yet clear.

The current idea of mass being directly convertible to 'energy' as some other material or virtual 'energy' stuff' substance is still dismissed. Note: Refer to the next section.