Chapt24 the cosmic abundance and distribution of chemical elements #1620 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

Now in the old below post of 2010 I talked about additive creation versus multiplicative creation of Dirac's New Radioactivities. This is now 2013 and a lot has changed in understanding. When we take the Maxwell Equations as the axioms over all of physics, we have to ask if the Maxwell Equations are all multiplicative and never a combination of additive and multiplicative? We find the answer immediate, in that the Ampere/Maxwell law is both multiplicative but with an additive term of the displacement current. In the Faraday law with magnetic monopoles we have an additive term of magnetic current density. So the Maxwell Equations demands that Dirac's New Radioactivities be both additive and multiplicative creation.

Now I think that makes better sense to have both because some of the chemical elements of lower atomic number are more scarce than those of higher atomic number and if we had just one form, either additive or multiplicative, we should not see such discrepancies.

sci.math, sci.astro, sci.physics
Â*Jun 20, 2:29Â*am
Date: Jun 20, 2010 3:29 AM
Author:
Subject: combinations of additive and multiplicative creation: Dirac's new
Â* Â* Â*radioactivities

Â*Now on page 92 of Dirac's book, Directions in Physics, I never really
Â*read it until recently where a person asks Dirac a question:
Â*--- quoting from Directions in Physics ---
Question: I was wondering if a suitable combination of additive
creation and multiplicative creation could give any answer you'd like?


Professor Dirac:
That is so! But it would be rather unreasonable, I think. I don't
suppose anybody would believe in a combination of both additive and multiplicative creation.
Â*--- end quoting ---


I want to remark about mine own history on this topic of additive
versus multiplicative.


Of course, Dirac did not have the Atom Totality theory. So I think, to
Dirac, that he was looking at a exclusion of either, or. Either one or the other with exclusion.


And I suspect that during Dirac's life, he was expecting the answer to
end up as multiplicative creation. I sense that in his book he was expecting the Moon to recede at 2cm/year.


And that sense of expectation by Dirac for multiplicative creation
rubbed off onto me and that I was expecting multiplicative to be true as one can see that it was in my first three editions of this book.


But I do remember quite well that I remarked several times that I
thought it could be both a multiplicative with additive creation. Where the creation is not a exclusive either, or, but an inclusive either or or both..


Now let me remark on some of the astronomy evidence since Dirac. There
is the evidence that Neptune is moving off its track and heading to a
approach of the Uranus track. So one can almost picture the orbit of Neptune as a huge, a mega Dirac additive creation. Then there is another astro news of exoplanets and their tight close orbits around their parent stars. Here again we can depict these orbits as Dirac mega-additive creation orbits.


Now one may ask why has Mercury still been able to escape being
swallowed by the Sun if Dirac additive creation was true? And I would answer that the outward pressure of the Solar rays is enough to counterbalance the additive creation. But if the planet were very big and gaseous so that the outward pressure of solar rays had not much to "push against" that the approachement would be in order.


So I think Dirac expected multiplicative creation, or at least favored
that. And that Dirac was not aware of Neptune's off track orbit, nor aware
of exoplanets approacing their parent stars.


And lastly, since Dirac did not have an Atom Totality to base his new
radioactivities, he would only see a exclusive either or for multiplicative versus additive.


But in quantum mechanics we have duality and I sense that the question
of either or exlusive is not what QM would answer. I sense that there is
a mix of the two, but mostly additive is what is going on. I sense the
universe needs a touch of multiplicative, because how does a new solar system come into being if it is all additive creation? Multiplicative creation starts a new solar system, or a new galaxy.


So I think we can have both Additive and Multiplicative creation but
the predominant one is Additive.


--

More than 90 percent of AP's posts are missing in the Google 
newsgroups author search archive from May 2012 to May 2013. Drexel 
University's Math Forum has done a far better job and many of those 
missing Google posts can be seen he

http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986

Archimedes Plutonium 

http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium 

whole entire Universe is just one big atom 

where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies