Synchrotron Radiation intrinsic to atomic structure? pulsars &quasars h

Thu, 24 Jul 2003 17:01:45 +0000 Lord Xenu wrote:

The best I could do was Cobalt 60 with its blue glow. My question then
would
be, is this blue glow of Cobalt 60 due to the radioactivity emission of
Cobalt
60 in that it is indeed, genuine synchrotron radiation.

No. I forget the name of that but not the cause. When Co-60 decays it
emits
a very energetic beta particle. The beta travels at a speed faster than the
speed of light through the medium (air, water), [note NOT faster than c!].
it has exactly the same effect as a supersonic jet in air creating a sonic
boom.
That optical "sonic boom" is the blue glow.

That is a nice analogy. Now, let me see if I can attach that analogy to what
quasars are in an AtomTotality of 231Pu. I will use the data found at this
website:


http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:FW4L2NNHSuIJ:www-
sd.lbl.gov/nsd/annual/rbf/nsd1998/nsr/lau_1.ps+231Pu&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

So if I have energetic electrons (electroncapture) inside a atom of 231Pu
with a MeV of about (6.720 +- 0.030) MeV emitted from the nucleus of
231Pu about every 8.6 minutes apart, then I should expect there to be
a continuous SynchrotronRadiation Effect from these 6.7 MeV electrons
spaced about 8.6 minutes apart.

So that quasars inside an AtomTotality would be the beacons of light
or radiowaves of the 5f6 lobes of 231Pu. No wonder all quasars are
rather evenly spaced from one another and at a far distance.



What I want to know is whether Synchrotron Radiation can be a fundamental
characteristic **inside of atoms**.

This sounds like a weird way of asking why the electron orbiting a nucleus
doesn't radiate synchrotron radiation like it "should", or why the
individual
protons moving around in a nucleus don't radiate. This is a result of
quantum
mechanics and is difficult to understand. The Schrodinger equations are
part
of the answer. Anyway, we know they don't radiate, otherwise electrons
would crash into nuclei and nuclei would come apart or something, and we
would observe this radiation. We don't.


I concurr part way with your answer. I concurr that orbiting electrons and
the nucleus stay in place, in situ due to explanations of Quantum Mechanics
in that they do not radiate any energy.

But I disagree as to radioactive emitting particles such as alpha particles or
beta particles or electroncapture particles. I would say that emitted
Radioactive
particles from any and every radioactive isotope has some measurable intrinsic
SynchrotronRadiation.

And I believe that in an AtomTotality, that this SynchrotronRadiation becomes
visible and observable and is what we know of as *quasars*.

Proof in Evidence: the recent V838 nonsupernova was really a ProtonRay
Materialization (alpha particle materialization) of a huge amount of energy
on a star system in V838. So that if a Radioactive alpha particle emitted
from the Nucleus of 231Pu can materialize on a star system with the energy
of a full scale supernova (simulate a supernova explosion). Then the constant
regular radioactive emissions of 231Pu of its electroncapture which is 90%
of the radioactive emissions of 231Pu would also translate into some regular
feature of the observable night sky and that would be quasars.


Primary atomic structures are spin, magnetic moment, angular momentum
etc etc.
Is Synchrotron Radiation ever a primary atomic structure?

Umm, no, since there is no synchrotron radiation from an atom that is
just sitting there.

Agreed, not sitting there. But there would be SynchrotronRadiation from
every radioactiveparticle emitted from the insides of an atom. Accelerated
either from the interaction of surrounding particles or accelerated just
from the changing geometry of the insides of that atom. The in-situ particles
that comprise the isotope have no synchrotronradiation but every emitted
radioactiveparticle would create a residue of synchrotronradiation.



So this temperature question reminds
me of this question of whether a Isolated Atom has internal
SychrotronRadiation
provided it is radioactive atom.

A radioactive atom is just another atom, except for the fact that at some
time it
will spontaneously change into something else. The emitted particles, when
charged, will radiate. Of course, the original atom no longer exists
anymore.

As to the internal temperature of an atom, I'd expect with those energetic
nucleons moving around, the internal temp. should be millions or billions
of kelvin.

No, not the nucleons but the dots of the electron-dot-cloud are so numerous
that they create a tiny internal temperature. Hydrogen having the smallest
internal temperature since it has few dots and plutonium dots so numerous
that it creates a 2.71 degree Kelvin internal temperature.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Chuck Simmons wrote:

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Thu, 24 Jul 2003 17:01:45 +0000 Lord Xenu wrote:

The best I could do was Cobalt 60 with its blue glow. My question then
would
be, is this blue glow of Cobalt 60 due to the radioactivity emission of
Cobalt
60 in that it is indeed, genuine synchrotron radiation.

No. I forget the name of that but not the cause. When Co-60 decays it
emits
a very energetic beta particle. The beta travels at a speed faster than the
speed of light through the medium (air, water), [note NOT faster than c!].
it has exactly the same effect as a supersonic jet in air creating a sonic
boom.
That optical "sonic boom" is the blue glow.

If memory serves correctly, this is called Cherenkov radiation. Or close
to that.


Cherenkov radiation would be a entirely different phenomenon from that
of Sychrotronradiation. And whereas Synchrotronradiation would be
a primary characteristic inside an individual atom, I do not see Cherenkov
radiation as primary nor existing inside an atom structure. Unless one would
say that the electron space is a different medium from the protonspace and
that as a radiation is emitted from the protonspace into the electronspace there
is a boundary zone where Cherenkov radiation occurrs. If that is true then
an AtomTotality theory would predict some region of the nightsky that has
a sort of "glow". And that region of course would be the direction towards
the Nucleus of 231Pu.

Perhaps every phenomenon of physics that we see, observe, learn about on a
microcosmic scale of the laboratory is also translated into some cosmic scale
phenomenon of the AtomTotality, such as V838 was a alpha particle decay
that materialized on a star to be seen as a supernova, and that quasars are
electron particle decay from the Nucleus that materialize on the far reaches
of the 5f6.

I do not know if the Protonic region of an atom is a different medium from
the Electron-space region of that same atom and would result in a Cherenkov
radiation effect. I suppose an experiment in physics could find out. Where
you peel away all the electrons in a vacuum and see whether there are changes of
color in the region of those atoms. Does Cobalt 60 still glow blue if its electrons

were removed.

And, in astronomy, I am not privy to any sighting of a glowing area. An area
in which all the galaxies seem to either be heading for or heading away at
180 degree angle.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Chuck Simmons wrote:



Cherenkov radiation would be a entirely different phenomenon from that
of Sychrotronradiation.

Of course. I was addressing, "The beta travels at a speed faster than
the speed of light through the medium (air, water), [note NOT faster
than c!]." The poster had forgotten the name of that kind of radiation.
It is quite different from sychrotron radiation.

Chuck

Yes, concur that these two radiations are very different.

But I am gaining the view that whatever physics we note here on Earth
in our laboratories is microcosmic physics and usually translatable into
astronomy of cosmic physics. Example: we note synchrotron radiation on
Earth and thus the AtomTotality will have stars or galaxies based upon
a cosmic synchrotron radiation-- quasars due to the materialization of
a beta decay.

As for Cherenkov radiation, that is a more difficult assignment to find
in the cosmic skys. For it is unknown whether the space of the interior
of atoms is different mediums. Whether the electronspace is a different
medium from the nuclear space where the protons reside.

And then there is the question of nodes of atoms. 231Pu has planar and
linear nodes (4th dimension is a fiction otherwise atoms would also have
volume nodes).

So will intelligent life ever take sight of the Nucleus of the AtomTotality
because of nodes?

Or will intelligent life fully gaze upon the Nucleus as a patch of Cherenkov
Radiation?

I did a search for the Great Attractor as to whether it is a fuzzy glowing ball.
To my delight I was happy to see some progress made on the Great Attractor
in that we know the direction being to Abell 3627. And furthmore we have
pictures of this Great Attractor region showing some patches of fuzzy blue.

I haven't a clue what you are talking about. Either I am confused or you
are confused. I'll just leave that as stated.

Question Chuck: would the Doppler effect apply to Cherenkov radiation. In
that if the Milky Way was going towards the Nucleus it would be made even
more blue but if the Milky Way were travelling away from the Nucleus would
have a reddening effect (mind you may still be blue depending on the distance
away from the Nucleus). Can we say the Doppler effect applies to Cherenkov
radiation?

Of course Doppler shift would apply to Cherenkov radiation but I don't
see how Cherenkov radiation is to be significant here.

That website shows a picture of the center of the alleged Great Attractor. It
may well be the Nucleus of the AtomTotality.

And I wonder whether most of the gammaraybursts and protonraybursts
come from the vicinity of Abell 3627.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/as.../990924a2.html

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Oh no! Not this again!

Chuck
--
... The times have been,
That, when the brains were out,
the man would die. ... Macbeth
Chuck Simmons

Chuck Simmons wrote in message ...
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Chuck Simmons wrote:

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Thu, 24 Jul 2003 17:01:45 +0000 Lord Xenu wrote:

The best I could do was Cobalt 60 with its blue glow. My question then
would
be, is this blue glow of Cobalt 60 due to the radioactivity emission of
Cobalt
60 in that it is indeed, genuine synchrotron radiation.

No. I forget the name of that but not the cause. When Co-60 decays it
emits
a very energetic beta particle. The beta travels at a speed faster than the
speed of light through the medium (air, water), [note NOT faster than c!].
it has exactly the same effect as a supersonic jet in air creating a sonic
boom.
That optical "sonic boom" is the blue glow.

If memory serves correctly, this is called Cherenkov radiation. Or close
to that.


Cherenkov radiation would be a entirely different phenomenon from that
of Sychrotronradiation.

Of course. I was addressing, "The beta travels at a speed faster than
the speed of light through the medium (air, water), [note NOT faster
than c!]." The poster had forgotten the name of that kind of radiation.
It is quite different from sychrotron radiation.

Chuck

But perhaps within the atom the electron DOES go faster than the speed
of light in a vacuum. Quantum Physics tell us that it can do so, even
though its net velocity when adding up the times cannot be faster than
light.

Furthermore, since light is both a wave and a particle, it could be
that the atoms around it give it a lesser speed. Then the electron
would give off this kind of radiation frequently.

Perhaps Sychowhatever radiation is NOT too different from
Cherewhatever radiation afterall.

(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)

Archimedes Plutonium wrote in message ...
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960218.html

I took another look at that picture, my curiosity is high. And I see those
3 patches of blue. And I wonder as to how can any object in the cosmic skys
be so symmetrical for I suspect they form an equilateral triangle.


No they do not. They form a scalene triangle.

But I also suspect that the luminosity of those 3 patches are equal. So what is
the probability of the Great Attractor have such enormous Symmetry? Symmetry
in distances and symmetry in lumin energy?


There is no symmetry. Look again.

If this is the Nucleus of an AtomTotality I would have expected a sphere, not
an equilateral triangle.

Is there any atomic physicists who can tell me if any actinides nucleus would
have a preference for equilateral shape???


What does this have to do with astronomy?

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

You're just a crank, aren't you?

(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)

Archimedes Plutonium wrote in message ...
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960218.html

I took another look at that picture, my curiosity is high. And I see those
3 patches of blue. And I wonder as to how can any object in the cosmic skys
be so symmetrical for I suspect they form an equilateral triangle.


No they do not. They form a scalene triangle.

But I also suspect that the luminosity of those 3 patches are equal. So what is
the probability of the Great Attractor have such enormous Symmetry? Symmetry
in distances and symmetry in lumin energy?


There is no symmetry. Look again.

If this is the Nucleus of an AtomTotality I would have expected a sphere, not
an equilateral triangle.

Is there any atomic physicists who can tell me if any actinides nucleus would
have a preference for equilateral shape???


What does this have to do with astronomy?

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

You're just a crank, aren't you?

(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)

Sat, 26 Jul 2003 02:54:51 -0500 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960218.html

I took another look at that picture, my curiosity is high. And I see those
3 patches of blue. And I wonder as to how can any object in the cosmic skys
be so symmetrical for I suspect they form an equilateral triangle.

But I also suspect that the luminosity of those 3 patches are equal. So what is
the probability of the Great Attractor have such enormous Symmetry? Symmetry
in distances and symmetry in lumin energy?

If this is the Nucleus of an AtomTotality I would have expected a sphere, not
an equilateral triangle.

Is there any atomic physicists who can tell me if any actinides nucleus would
have a preference for equilateral shape???

It has been years since I looked at the Schrodinger Wave Equation for the 5f6
nucleus of plutonium.

Many ifs, if, if, if.

There is one supporting evidence that a Nucleus of actinides can be triangular
in shape and that is the "orbital neutrons" in that neutrons tend to orbit
in the nucleus.

The above picture of Abell 3627, if it was the Nucleus of 231Pu then those
3 blue patches would be the outer boundary of the nucleus and inside of those
3 patches would be the Nucleus shrouded in a Node. Not a volume node but a
surface-of-a-sphere-like node.

And those 3 blue patches would then be the start or beginning of the elongation
of one of the six lobes of the 5f6.

So the 3 patches are Cherenkov radiation of particles spewed from the Nucleus
and the glow is derived from the different medium that is the electronspace lobe
and the medium from whence it came of the nucleus.

And since the Doppler Effect applies to Cherenkov radiation, if we assume
the 3 patches of blue were equal in all respects then we should observe them as
slightly different due to a tiny factor of Doppler which should be a measurable
quantity and a predictable quantity. I do not have the detailed expertise to
compute what that tiny difference should be.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Sat, 26 Jul 2003 13:48:20 -0500 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Sat, 26 Jul 2003 02:54:51 -0500 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960218.html


Now there maybe a fast and easy and totally convincing proof that the above
Great Attractor is the nucleus of the 231Pu AtomTotality. And that proof would
consist of measuring whether there exists 3 centers of motion corresponding
to 3 of the 6 lobes of 5f6. The MilkyWay galaxy and the local group would be
galaxies residing in one of those 3 lobes and would be in a line-of-motion different
from the 2 other lobes.

Proof: if we find out that all visible galaxies have 3 or 6 independent lines of
motion relative to Abell 3627, then those lines of motion are the 3 or 6 lobes of
the 5f6.

My guess at this very moment, not knowing further details, is that those 3
blue patches are the portals from the Nucleus of 5f6 and they are 3 of the
6 lobes and they comprise all those galaxies that are so to speak "incoming"
whose motion is towards the Nucleus. And the other 3 lobes which are
not visible are galaxies that are moving away from the Nucleus.

Or, I could have that wrong in that each lobe of the 6 lobes has both incoming
galaxies and outgoing (relative to the Nucleus).

Summary, easy proof of the AtomTotality would be an overwhelming amount
and degree of symmetry starting from the location of Abell 3627.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Sat, 26 Jul 2003 13:48:20 -0500 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Sat, 26 Jul 2003 02:54:51 -0500 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960218.html



Thinking some more about this. I believe our nightsky observable Universe has
all 6 electron lobes of the 5f6 available to observation. I believe that Sandage
was seeing the oldest stars stretching back into the Thorium Atom Totality of
more than 20 billions years old. So I think the observable universe includes all
6 of the lobes of the 5f6.

As to why 3 blue glows in the Abell 3627 picture. My guess is that the
last 6 protons of the Nucleus of plutonium have each 3 orbiting neutrons.

I cannot think of any experiment to perform at this moment that would say
that the protons in the nucleus are separate and symmetrical entities. Nor can
I point to experimental physics to support a claim that the plutonium atom
nucleus not only has 6 last protons but that these 6 last protons have 3
orbiting neutrons around each of those 6 last protons.

That the Great Attractor is the Nucleus of 231Pu AtomTotality and that
we are never able to visibly see into the Nucleus because it is shrouded by
surface-Nodes. But what we are able to see is these 3 beautiful symmetrical
glowing blue lights. And they are a result of Cherenkov radiation because the
change of medium from the Nucleus of its proton/s and 3 orbiting neutrons.
The 3 blue glows are medium changes from neutrons to electronspace.

And since Cherenkov radiation also has Doppler shift effect, then those
3 blue glows should also have perfect symmetry once a Doppler effect is
applied.

There should be other blue glowing bodies in the vicinity of Abell 3627,
namely 3 x 6 or 18 in all. But they maybe blocked from view because of
the surface nodal plane of the 5f6. But if we are able to spot more of these
blue glowing bodies then we should be able to adjust them for Doppler
effect and the endresult being even greater degree of symmetry.

I do not know of a observational test or experiment to prove that these blue
glowing objects are not galaxies or galactic clusters but that they are some
genuine new phenomenon never before seen in cosmology.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:



*Plonk*