New Tectonics 2016 Revised (VII)
In the previous post I explained that datation, is sometimes very inaccurate and has values much different in some cases from those which would be the real ones. You might think I don’t know what I am stating, but think twice.
The address above gives information, links, and references for carbon dating, so read that link if you know nothing or little about it.
I published a drawing I made last year while writing about nuclear interactions. I’ll put it here again.
[for some reason I will further investigate, but as a guess, I think it is a built-in for layout optimization in the load of web-pages, my images passed from being displayed in full size, to being changed in their size format. If you see them small read your browser’s address bar, delete whatever appears after .jpg and reload the address, for instance in this image address:
Select and cut this ?w=640&h=334
and reload it. You’ll see it in full size].
In fact this is a simplified version of a hand-made one I have in my papers.
Excuse me, I am a bit tired today, I’ll update this post tomorrow (it will be a long one) with more info. Meanwhile, read about this topic in the web address I provided above.
I’ll keep updating for some hours this morning, first I’ll upload some scans I’ve just made of my papers, and then I’ll go on explaining and translating. The texts are in Spanish.
(Might contain some errors, I wrote all this while revising in May last year (2015). As these are complicate concepts even for experts, wait to conclude anything until I myself develope explanations and translations, besides I must re-read all this because I wrote it almost one year ago).
I have already explained the content for the first two images in a previous post (English and Spanish… and maybe Astunglish coming soon… 🙂 ).
In fact subatomic particles are so tiny, it is difficult to stablish anything for sure, because everything related to this is inferred from detectors’ responses along with substances behaviours.
Generally speaking, scientists and technicians nowadays might know very much about their fields of study, but little about other subjects. So an electrician, for instance, knows a lot about electrical facilities or specifications, but little about how music and harmonics work (apart from the Plank constant and its simplified version (that little h with a hyphen in the middle), poloid’s (and its counterpart: herpoloid’s) behaviour in rotors axes swiveling eccentricities, and the omnipresent FFT, Fast Fourier Transform, which, by the way, is not exactly the same as the complete Fourier Series…).
In order to unify things it is good to have a wide field of view, at least on Science, this is why Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics get intrincate in some advanced concepts (such as inner and outer products of vectors and their different impacts on vectorial fields, such as little g, big G, and electromagnetic fields) and are explained through models, theories, and postulates.
For the third image (the one below) I have outsketched a graphical explanation for neutrons-protons interactions, thought as a movement and reordering in their respective positions.
Bear in mind that Strings Theory, for instance, claims that there are n+1 dimensions; the three dimensions, familiar to the Average Joe: width, length, height, that is to say, the Euclidean Space, denoted usually as X, Y, Z, in Cartesian coordinates…
(There are other coordinate systems: polar, cylindrical, bolardic, oops, I mean spherical, along with other reference systems, X’, Y’, Z’, and here is where General and Special Relativity models are born, and also different numerical systems and bases, such as binary, octal, hexadecimal… real one, two, three, n-dimensional spaces, complex n-spaces, and so on…)
… and also in slightly better and advanced explanations as base (auto or canonical…) unitary vectors:
[In order to make all of you wonder why there is a keyboard built-in, alt+numbers special character for these: ♪, ☺, ☻, ♥, … but there is not an easily built-in keyboard alt+ some-other-number for the little pointing rightward arrow (just as accents or dieresis), above letter for vectors and sets of vectors notation… (reduced functional, long-taking, or pgn, or namespaces for hosting urls, to the point that there is a NOT generally wide known convention about writing vectors in bold italics, along with not spending the whole morning searching for the different coding options codes for right arrow above letter I leave it like this].
⃗i,⃗j,⃗ k and also ⃗e0, ⃗e1, ⃗e2, … , ⃗en, when complicate ordered structures, such as chrystalographic sistems are being considered.
So, the usual 3D-space (and time, as a fourth dimension: 3+1), plus a number of different cardinality/order, regarding which type of Strings Theory:
n-Space + 1-Time, is being postulated (there are several models with different cardinal values for the n spacial dimensions). These additional dimensions, are thought to be arranged in different dispositions into the familiar to everyone three-dimensional space.
Elements and molecules of any substance are known to have different behaviours according to several variables, among which that related to spacial arrangement is known as allotropic behaviour.
My explanation for neutron-proton-neutron transformations is what image ’02 Interacciones nucleares’, a scan of one of my sheets of paper, deals with.
By taking three linearly independent base vectors (with their moduluses and arguments between them) and making each different state for nucleon coincide or align with one, and only one, of them for each different state, transformations can be explained by movements, twists in the alignment for each state, being these twists related to the energy of the particles.
p-orbitals, for instance, are regions of the space surrounding the nucleus of the atom where the probability (density) to find electrons is much bigger than any other positions between, for elements who have more than two electrons: five electrons is the minimum value of electrons an element or isotope must have to have some of them in a p-orbital configuration, being the fifth one in this case a 2p1 position: 1s1, 1s2, 2s1, 2s2, 2p1.
Ten electrons (hydrogen, for instance, does not have p orbitals, because the hydrogen atom in equilibrium has two electrons, the two of then into an s like orbital 1s1, 1s2, so it would have little sense to search for an electron into any of the possible p-orbital positions, such as the 2p3 position, for instance, of level n = 2 for an atom of hydrogen) is the maximum value of electrons for an element or isotope of the level n=2 .
The p orbital can contain at most six electrons from 2p1 to 2p6, because in n=1 there are no p orbitals.
The pi letters in the drawing are for pions, not for p orbitals, in fact it would be better understood with the drawing on their right, that is to say, three lines starting fron one point, each of them extending in one direction, and not surpassing the point where they start towards the opposite direction (that is a semi-axis in geometry).
The three lines have a +, a –, and a 0 on their expanding directions, and there are curves with arrows joining them indicating the three pionic states: 0, +, and – pions, which turn into other states by swinging.
I have written two equations in that paper, each of then in a line, I named (1), and (2), and both of them compossed of three semi-transformations:a, b, and c.
The first line is for transformations made by +pi, positive pions interactions:
a) The proton (on the left) is turned into a neutron and a positive pion, π+, the original neutron (on the right) remains the same.
b) The positive pion, π+, released from the proton, associates with the original neutron the reaction started with, to become eventually
c) A proton (plus the neutron generated in 1)a) semi-reaction).
In the second line, the transformation happens through negative pions, π-.
a) The original neutron is unbalanced, splits, and becomes a proton and negative pion, π-, the original proton remains the same.
b) The resultant negative pion associates with the original proton (on the right) resulting in
c) A neutron (on the right most part of the equation), plus the unbalanced neutron that had become a proton in (a) semi-reaction.
It might be that you know a lot about nuclear physics, and then you know a lot about quarks and antiquarks, and subatomic particles systemated as the mixture of up, down, strange, charm, top, and bottom, and their counterparts (complementaries), combining into different wavy (each with its own wave equation) states for neutron, neutrino, antineutrino, proton, electron, and the long series of particle-antiparticle as a compossed value of quarks (three values combinations of quarks and antiquarks (with a little dash on top of them) defining each MODELLED postulate states).
[I think that, at least in Spanish, would be a variation with repetition of twelve elements taken in three, and that is 12 x 12 x 12 = twelve to the third power (or order).
That is 144 x 12= 1728 different wavy subatomic particles (for which there are different webpages giving information conveniently laid out in charts, of which I noted down some for my convenience, taking quarks and antiquarks in 3 values combinations each. 🙂
[mmm… 1728 , that’s very near to some value related to the two-body problem for the the Earth-Moon barycenter, I’ll lookup later…].
As you can see, hyperphysics get a bit out of scope sometimes, so, let’s touch the ground again.
A proton is not more than a neutron electrically unbalanced, that is to say, a neutron which is electrically signed, lacking the negative charge of an electron, which is the amount of electric charge it takes for it to became neutral and be a neutron. So a proton is a neutron without its own electron, that is what a proton is.
However, in highschool we are tought the amount of positive electric charge is called a positron, giving then the idea of an electrically charged subatomic particle with a positive value.
A neutron is (or at least was) also said to be a proton with an electron strongly associated in a strong nuclear interaction in the nucleus of the atom, and I am much more inclined to this other explanation. This way it is easy to understand the explanation for the scan image ’03 Interacciones nucleares’, which is the one below this text.
A neutron loses negative charge (in either of the two ways of conceiving the process), to become a proton, but in fact what it does, and this is MY THEORY, is changing its alignment, from the neutral pionic state axis to the protonic state axis by swinging its position, and also, can become positive by staying where it is and losing an electron who is then emmitted to the outside vicinities of the atom’s nucleus, and then moves to align with the protonic positive axis (in the other way of conceiving the process, we are told at highschool neutrons gain positive charge by gaining positrons, which by the way was the title for a physics textbook: ‘positron’, I studied at highschool ages ago… 🙂 , to become protons. Be it by electron loss or positron gain, the fact (and this is a ‘micro’ and ‘macro’ felt effect), … I’ll repeat… THE FACT, is that electric charges affect and are affected by magnetic fields, and this (as anyone can check by watching carefully how a compass moves while passing a magnet nearby, makes ferromagnetic, in a macro-evident way, and other materia align in other directions of threedimensional Average Joe’s space) has an effect in the spacial n-dimensions, whatever their cardinality or order be, arrangement of the particles, so, in short, makes them move in other directions.
[Well… it is sort of scolding speech to awake consciousness for all of the people who are amused reading my posts and singing carols along with me, in order to let all of this insulsus calculus and / or ideas to be transmitted quickly by these otherwise joyful carol choir readers, so that they try to pass the message to other people who can effectivelly check if what I say is right or wrong, so it be checked in the quickest way as possible… though anyway… if you cannot do a thing about all this, just finetune and keep singing: la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la…].
So, in short, a neutron, a proton and an electron become one another by swinging their position to align along pionic +, -, and (zero) 0 axes, and according to MY THEORY, positive charges do not move, because they are a result of electron loss in neutrons into the atom’s nucleus. And that, by the way, is what electricity and electronic devices and signals work on: ELECTRONS movement.
Because neutrons and protons don’t move, and there is not a movement of positive electrical charges. And if you are thinking about holes streams, think twice, because that is exactly what I am trying to explain as simple and clear as possible: ‘hole’ comes from ‘lack of’, and its meaning in electricity and electronics is the lack of negative charge, they don’t move, what moves is electrons away from those places that then are called holes, and that movement creates a path of places where those atoms or molecules lost electrons, being thus sort of magnets for electrons coming from the outside. This type of analysis is widely used in logical circuits implementations, and almost everything has already changed to analize electronic chips, circuits, and devices as if what moved were the empty places were an electron can arrive, but REALITY is, positive charges don’t move, what moves is negative charges.
And here is where things get hard: this type of reaction occurs spontaneously at a much slower pace in the atmosphere. Well… slowly for as long as there are not loads of extra energy added or obtained and emmitted all over.
So, I’ll finish the scolding type of speech here and will go on explaining in a tranquil inteligible manner.
This type of interaction occurs spontaneously in the atmosphere and it is the base for datation through various isotopes of which, the most widely known is carbon fourteen.
While a living organism breathes, it incorporates the gaseous mixture it is breathing into its cells. Into the mixture there is a percentage of the control isotope for the datation, and by analizing the content of this isotope (C14, CNO cycle isotopes, or other isotopes, such as those in MIS, marine isotope stage) and comparing with what it is believed to have been the content in the atmosphere for the period of time into which that organism was living into, the amount of the isotope being considered can be determined by taking and measuring various samples. This way, an amount of time passed from the time when the organism was alive and breathing the mixture, can be determined by applying different estimations for the isotopes velocity of desintegration (decay) and transformation into other atoms, isotopes or flows of energies: electric, calorific, magnetic…
[that’s all for now, I’ll write a post now in Spanish related to water treatment here in Asturias where I live, so I’ll go on with this later ( March-17th-2016) ]
(La nota en la imagen de debajo se refiere al dibujo de arriba, hecho con Paint).
(The note in the image below is referring the drawing above, made with Paint).
And that’s all for now (March the 16th 2016) 09:22 am Spanish time, GMT +1).