Nucleonic Shape or Numerology?

[mcompengr]

F. Iron, Why 56?

(see Organizing Principles)

 

For atomic nuclei the component nucleons' environment is understood well enough. What is not known is just what nucleonic aspects demand what sort of complex organizing of the nuclei. (A leap of rhetoric is made here. If space had a shape, what might it be?) The question "why 56?" has been asked about the number of nucleons in the iron nucleus, and it is noted that 56 regular tetrahedra tile "loosely" forming a loose but 100% effective connectivity of "56" about an empty central slot. (Compared to "26" for the cube.) The issue is the total number of nucleons. The tetrahedron's dihedral angle is 70.528779 degrees, the arccos(1/3). (72 degrees would be too perfect.)

 

The look of the thing is astonishing in simplicity and symmetries. It fairly proclaims fillion above and fusion below. It is itself, of course, a stylized regular tetrahedron with others at its core made from 4 and 16, and its own self likewise the core of another at 200. (He, O, Fe, Hg?) These structures would be more solid than most were there just something strong to force the pieces together. Nucleons would have limited elbow room.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZhaTgFwVl0 (Graphic sketch of 56 regular tetrahedra.)

 

There are hints at structure to notice in the complete sequence: 4, 12, 16, 56, 92, 128, 164, 200, 236, [( 272, and 308. The last two because they coincide with the found and predicted "islands of stability" in the periodic table of the elements. A final one is predicted at 344. )] The increment of 36 nucleons above iron-56 reveals several other coincidences (wanting to be judged "coincidences") and involves an additional empty slot with each new 36 nucleon block. 36, and they would all get added in one place, on one side. Odd unless the optimal structures need the empty slot, and then another solid, iron-like nucleus appears. (20 nucleons shared with what is already there.)

[( http://www.infosources.org/what_is/Island_of_stability.html, etc. )]

 

[( 272 and 308 the "islands of stability" in the periodic table. )]

Single isotopic element clusters at 56, 92, 128, 164, 200, and 236.

Visual appearance of 4, 12, 16, 56, and 200.

Correlation (weak) to peaks and troughs of magnetic susceptibility. (McGraw-Hill, #10, fig. 1, p. 304)

Periodic table atomic mass glitches at 56, 128, and 236.

 

It all seems just a little too coincidental, but "It looks" is a beginning not an end.

 

The binding energy of the "iron peak", and carbon's "resonance" vs. oxygen's lack of that, would look explained. (The carbon nucleus would be identical to oxygen's stylized regular tetrahedron but with the helium nucleus inside gone.)

 

Every other element above iron alternates between having only one or two isotopes, and having many. All the way up the shapes remain smooth and solid looking by adding just two figures together almost anywhere. The alternating change in nucleonic binding energy between every element would have an explanation.

 

Almost every isotope above iron has an even number of neutrons. (An odd number of protons with an odd atomic mass, or even with even.) Why does the universe favor atomic fermions?

 

This proposed nuclei "structure function" is well organized, like the Russian dolls. The periodic table would be one big nested nest of stylized regular tetrahedra. Every isotope would contain the nucleus of every single element that came before it. The residual strong force would certainly have an easier time of it, and this would help solid to follow liquid and gas into the nuclei model (why not?).

 

An Other Periodic Table

X H He Li Be B C N

Li Be B C N O F Ne Na Mg Al Si P

Al Si P S Cl Cr K Ca Sc Ti V Cr Mn Fe Co Ni Cu Zn Ga Ge As

Fe Co Ni Cu Zn Ga Ge As Se Br Kr Rb Sr Y Z r Nb Mo Tc Ru Rh Pd Ag

Sr Y Zr Nb Mo Tc Ru Rh Pd Ag Cd In Sn Sb Te I Xe Cs Ba La Ce Pr

Te I Xe Cs Ba La Ce Pr Nd Pm Sm Eu Gd Tb Dy Ho Er Tm Yb Lu Hf Ta

Dy Ho Er Tm Yb Lu Hf Ta W Re Os Ir Pt Au Hg Ti Pb Bi Po At Rn Fr

Pt Au Hg Ti Pb Bi Po At Rn Fr Ra Ac h Pa U Np

Y

KEY:

Because of the differing proton-neutron ratio between elements, any nucleonic "shells" won't columnate well by proton when the organiz

ing principle is an increment of atomic mass (36 nucleons). Near 'X', Nb and Cs are one and three protons past the reference column, respectively. At 'Y' they are both 11 protons shy of their next reference column element. Single isotopic elements are underlined. Lines can not wrap. Numerology? Say it ain't so.

[( Closed-shell nuclei numbers for reference: 2, 8, 20, 28, 50, 82, 126 )]

[Acme]

F. Iron, Why 56?

... Lines can not wrap. Numerology? Say it ain't so.

[( Closed-shell nuclei numbers for reference: 2, 8, 20, 28, 50, 82, 126 )]

Richard Buckminster Fuller pedaled pell mell down that rabbit hole decades ago. Is his synergetic base ten indigs adventure part of today's curriculum? It ain't so.

 

Synergetics: Explorations in the Geometry of Thinking

[Sensei]

[latex]_{26}^{56}Fe[/latex] is only one of many stable isotopes of Iron.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_iron

Almost every isotope above iron has an even number of neutrons. (An odd number of protons with an odd atomic mass, or even with even.) Why does the universe favor atomic fermions?

I have no idea what you are writing about..

 

Where did you get such silly idea?

 

If you have even number of protons and neutrons, its (nuclear) spin will be 0. So it'll be boson.

 

If you have odd number of protons and neutrons, its spin will be full integer. Again boson.

Edited October 12, 2014 by Sensei

[mcompengr]

Yes, thanks, even verses odd atomic mass. With much respect for what this forum represents,

got them switched like spelling fission: "fillion" above. Truly sorry for the distraction and any more.

 

Without respect to spin or proton number, Z,: The vast majority of isotopes have an even number

of neutrons. One way or another, every paragraph is meant to point to the big sillyness (small thesis)

that nucleons may relate to each other as if they were that shape.

[Sensei]

There is 3142 isotopes known total. Majority of them unstable.

There is 2635 isotopes with Z>26 and Z=26,A>=56.

From 2635 isotopes, 1306 have even neutron quantity, and 1329 odd neutron quantity.

 

It appears so when you're writing "isotope" you're thinking only about "stable isotope".

[mcompengr]

Richard Buckminster Fuller pedaled pell mell down that rabbit hole decades ago. Is his synergetic base ten indigs adventure part of today's curriculum? It ain't so.

 

Synergetics: Explorations in the Geometry of Thinking

I love it when it seems that one (1) tiny thing could solve many small puzzles,

without contradicting something. Would it do that? Is it clear and terse enough?

Acme, I have others. What should I do? It's a white rabbit, but I'm not Mad Hatter,

am I? Is there not data which shows patterns? Or the speculation forum. -Door Mouse

[mcompengr]

There is 3142 isotopes known total. Majority of them unstable.

There is 2635 isotopes with Z>26 and Z=26,A>=56.

From 2635 isotopes, 1306 have even neutron quantity, and 1329 odd neutron quantity.

 

It appears so when you're writing "isotope" you're thinking only about "stable isotope".

 

Yes, thanks. It was this below, (plus an undergrad chemistry text, & Encyc.of Sci. and Tech. McGraw/Hill.)

http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/Compositions/stand_alone.pl?ele=&ascii=html&isotype=some

[Sensei]

Yes, thanks. It was this below, (plus an undergrad chemistry text, & Encyc.of Sci. and Tech. McGraw/Hill.)

http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/Compositions/stand_alone.pl?ele=&ascii=html&isotype=some

This is list of stable and observatory stable (theoretically unstable) isotopes.

The bottom of this list has also permanently unstable isotopes.

 

Complete list of isotopes is 15-20 times bigger.

Edited October 15, 2014 by Sensei

[Acme]

 

Richard Buckminster Fuller pedaled pell mell down that rabbit hole decades ago. Is his synergetic base ten indigs adventure part of today's curriculum? It ain't so.

Synergetics: Explorations in the Geometry of Thinking

I love it when it seems that one (1) tiny thing could solve many small puzzles,

without contradicting something. Would it do that? Is it clear and terse enough?

Acme, I have others. What should I do? It's a white rabbit, but I'm not Mad Hatter,

am I? Is there not data which shows patterns? Or the speculation forum. -Door Mouse

 

Yes data exhibits patterns and we peoples have evolved an acute sense of pattern recognition. However we have also evolved to misinterpret patterns such as with pareidolia.

 

As to numerology, as I intimated it is entirely base dependent and so rather meaningless for analysis. For example if you write your birth-year in base thirty-eight you now have to come up with 37 characteristics to attribute rather than the 9 characteristics numerologists assign when using base ten. The same is going to be true for doing numerology on the periodic table. One may well find some appealing pattern in any base but no single base is the clear and terse grail you are looking for.

 

Fuller believed base 10 -and to a lesser degree base 20- were 'special' on account of us having 10 fingers and 10 toes. Similarly and far predating Fuller there is the [base ten] Vedic square which was attributed with tersity & 'power' and yet when one changes bases there are actually a never-ending cavalcade of such squares.

 

Just so you don't think I'm talking out my rabbit hole, here's my construction of the base 16 'vedic square'. While it reeks of pattern it has no utility beyond sensual appeal. Take the red pill.

 

edit for speeling airs.

Edited October 15, 2014 by Acme

[mcompengr]

Yes data exhibits patterns and we peoples have evolved an acute sense of pattern recognition. However we have also evolved to misinterpret patterns such as with pareidolia.

 

As to numerology, as I intimated it is entirely base dependent and so rather meaningless for analysis. For example if you write your birth-year in base thirty-eight you now have to come up with 37 characteristics to attribute rather than the 9 characteristics numerologists assign when using base ten. The same is going to be true for doing numerology on the periodic table. One may well find some appealing pattern in any base but no single base is the clear and terse grail you are looking for.

 

Fuller believed base 10 -and to a lesser degree base 20- were 'special' on account of us having 10 fingers and 10 toes. Similarly and far predating Fuller there is the [base ten] Vedic square which was attributed with tersity & 'power' and yet when one changes bases there are actually a never-ending cavalcade of such squares.

 

Just so you don't think I'm talking out my rabbit hole, here's my construction of the base 16 'vedic square'. While it reeks of pattern it has no utility beyond sensual appeal. Take the red pill.

 

edit for speeling airs.

 

But, there are more than one (1).

They are not related through number, but shape.

Number is number two with geometry, that's why it's depreciated.

Something about shape is number one.

The forest not the trees. There is a pattern: geometry is left out.

There is 3142 isotopes known total. Majority of them unstable.

There is 2635 isotopes with Z>26 and Z=26,A>=56.

From 2635 isotopes, 1306 have even neutron quantity, and 1329 odd neutron quantity.

 

It appears so when you're writing "isotope" you're thinking only about "stable isotope".

Thanks again for the other reply.

 

The Standard Model folks ain't looking at smoke and mirrors, are they?

 

"A Geometric Theory of Everything", A.Garrett Lisi and James Orwen Weatherall, Scientific American, December 2010.

[Strange]

"A Geometric Theory of Everything", A.Garrett Lisi and James Orwen Weatherall, Scientific American, December 2010.

 

That was a really appealing idea. Unfortunately, it doesn't work: the results it predicts don't match reality.

 

There are a lot of symmetries in particle physics so perhaps it isn't surprising that a model based on very complex symmetries would encompass a good proportion of them.

[mcompengr]

 

That was a really appealing idea. Unfortunately, it doesn't work: the results it predicts don't match reality.

 

There are a lot of symmetries in particle physics so perhaps it isn't surprising that a model based on very complex symmetries would encompass a good proportion of them.

(By way of focus...)

All of this true stuff says that geometric patterns sometimes come from thin air.

But the page #1 stuff here would characterize quite differently, and in opposite

directions. IT is other and seperate patterns trying to say that there is unkown

physical geometry below. The former ("yours") is known graphic geometry trying

to say that something unrelated must be its cause. (i.e the geometry is the thesis

vs. the geometry is the data.) Geometry could be a cause rather than an effect.

Old bias.

[Acme]

 

snip ...

Just so you don't think I'm talking out my rabbit hole, here's my construction of the base 16 'vedic square'. While it reeks of pattern it has no utility beyond sensual appeal. Take the red pill.

 

edit for speeling airs.

But, there are more than one (1).

They are not related through number, but shape.

Number is number two with geometry, that's why it's depreciated.

Something about shape is number one.

The forest not the trees. There is a pattern: geometry is left out.

 

Thanks again for the other reply.

 

The Standard Model folks ain't looking at smoke and mirrors, are they?

 

"A Geometric Theory of Everything", A.Garrett Lisi and James Orwen Weatherall, Scientific American, December 2010.

 

You're welcome. Geometry is a branch of mathematics and virtually meaningless without number. As to trees and forests I have read they are self-similar and so a branch of fractals. Even so, fractals are meaningless sans number. As interesting as Lisi is -or was- his work did not pan out. Not that it wasn't worth looking inasmuch as gold is where one finds it, but setting him as an example is not up to snuffing an ember.

[mcompengr]

 

This is what 56 regular tetrahedra look like, 3D. (The small gaps between are not visible. Empty slot at center.)

Edited April 2, 2017 by mcompengr