Elemental Limitations

Discussion concerning the first major re-evaluation of Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal System of theory, updated to include counterspace (Etheric spaces), projective geometry, and the non-local aspects of time/space.
Post Reply
User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Elemental Limitations

Post by bperet »

MWells wrote:
Looks like they claim three examples of producing and observing element 118 atoms, which had average lifetimes of 1ms. If correct, would this not falsify the RS?
Did some checking and the only thing that Larson said for certain was this:

Dewey Larson wrote:
For reasons which will be developed later, element 118 is unstable, and disintegrates if formed.
I think that is certainly the case with the observed element #118, and all the elements above that.

What I believe Larson was referring to is that there can only be 117 STABLE elements, given a magnetic ionization level of zero. Our current environment is about 1, which makes everything from #92 up, radioactive.

I suppose they can create any mass they want, but they will always just blow apart past #117, regardless of the magnetic ionization level (which, BTW, is unknown to legacy science).

The RS2 application is a little different, because the rotational restriction of 4x4x8 (A-B-C) occurs in the Euclidean projection. I don't know if there is a limit to the actual scalar magnitudes of rotation--I would assume that the only limit is in their expression in a particular geometry.

Quote:
PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE

The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News

Number 797 October 16, 2006 by Phillip F. Schewe, Ben Stein,

and Davide Castelvecchi www.aip.org/pnu

ELEMENTS 116 AND 118 ARE DISCOVERED. At the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR) in Dubna, Russia, physicists (including collaborators from Lawrence Livermore National Lab in the US) have sent a beam of calcium-48 ions into a target of californium-249 atoms to create temporarily a handful of atoms representing element 118. The nucleus for these atoms have a total atomic mass of 294 units. In fact, only three of these atoms, the heaviest ever produced in a controlled experiment, were observed. After sending 2 x 10^19 calcium projectiles into the target, one atom of element 118 was discovered in the year 2002 and two more atoms in 2005. The researchers held up publication after seeing their first specimen in order to find more events. According to Livermore physicist Ken Moody, speaking at a press conference today from Livermore, the three events have been well studied and the odds of a statistical fluke at work here are less than a part in ten thousand. Caution would naturally be on the minds of anyone announcing a new element; Evidence for element 118 was offered once before, by a team at the LBL lab ( http://www.aip.org/pnu/1999/split/pnu432-1.htm), but this claim was later retracted (www.aip.org/pnu/2001/split/550-1.html)when it was discovered that some of the data had been falsified.

In searching through 10^19 collision events, how do you know you have found a new element? Because of the clear and unique decay sequence involving the offloading of alpha particles, nuclear parcels consisting of two protons and two neutrons. In this case, nuclei of element 118 decay to become element 116 (hereby itself discovered for the first time), and then element 114, and then element 112 by emitting detectable alphas. The 112 nucleus subsequently fissions into roughly equal-sized daughter particles. The average lifetime observed for the three examples of element 118 was about one millisecond, not long enough to perform any kind of chemical tests (you’d need an hour’s time for that). Element 118 lies just beneath radon in the periodic table and is therefore a kind of noble gas.

The Dubna-Livermore team previously announced the discovery of elements 113 and 115 (http://www.aip.org/pnu/2004/split/672-1.html) and next hope to produce element 120 by crashing a beam of iron atoms into a plutonium target. To build nuclei much heavier than this you would need a beam of neutron-rich radioactive nuclei; the proposal to build an accelerator in the US for doing just this has been stalled. (Oganessian et al., Physical Review C, October 2006; Livermore press release at www.llnl.gov)
Every dogma has its day...
Post Reply