#1 new book; ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY REPLACES BIG BANGTHEORY IN PHYSICS

There is going to be a point in my life where I no longer am able to
think
back and tell the history of the Atom Totality theory, where I forget
the
succession of events and where my mind is too old or for whatever
reason
unable to tell this story accurately. So it is good that this history
account
is told in every one of these editions before I reach that inability
stage.
And I want to make each edition
better reading than the previous one. This 3rd edition is going to be
shorter.
I can cut out alot of the details and sort of skip to major points. I
am
going to start this history by accounting the history of the discovery
of the
Atom Totality theory, 7 November 1990. I am going to start the story
from
1975 when I was 25 years old and teaching math in Australia and
reading this
book on Pragmatism. Earlier editions give a larger version of this
history,
but I want a abbreviated one now. And this history is going to use
books
as the succession of events.

History of discovery of Atom Totality Theory as per books read:

(1) I read a pretty idea from the mathematician C.S.
Peirce who wrote "The Architecture of Theories" in 1891
that the universe is crystallizing-out.

--- quoting FOUR PRAGMATISTS by I. Scheffler, 1974
---
Peirce's The Architecture of Theories...
...would be a Cosmogonic Philosophy. It would
suppose
that in the beginning - infinitely remote - there was
a chaos
of unpersonalized feeling, which being without
connection or
regularity would properly be without existence. This
feeling,
sporting here and there in pure arbitrariness, would
have
started the germ of a generalizing tendency. Its other
sportings would be evanescent, but this would have a
growing
virtue. Thus, the tendency to habit would be started;
and
from this, with the other principles of evolution, all
the
regularities of the universe would be evolved. At any
time,
however, an element of pure chance survives and will
remain
until the world becomes an absolutely perfect,
rational,
and symmetrical system, in which mind is at last
crystallized in the infinitely distant future.
--- end quoting FOUR PRAGMATISTS ---

The first time I read this was in 1975, and I was so impressed
with that paragraph that I remembered it clearly by 1989
when it would come to me in a torrent of creativity.

I remember in 1989 in my apartment flat in New Hampshire
of this Pierce Cosmology coming into my mind. Almost
out of the blue, for it just came to me where I asked a
question. I had remembered this crystallizing out that
Pierce had written and asked the question, what in the
world is worthy of crystallizing out *into*? Is there anything
in existence worthy of crystallizing-into? And the answer
was, for me in 1989, yes, crystallizing out into becoming
an atom. That atoms were nearly perfect entities and the
only thing near to perfect as far as the world understands
perfect.

And now that I look back from 2009 to 1989 which was
20 years ago (my, time does fly), one would think that
I should have had the Atom Totality theory right then and
there. But actual discovery takes twists and turns and pauses.
The 1989 event for me was the setting-up of the discovery
of the Atom Totality theory. I think if my memory is correct
and too lazy to check in my archive that I called this 1989 event
the Atom Equinox since I think it was Autumn of 1989, or it
could have been the Spring of 1989, for I cannot remember
at this moment. (And why it is important to write these
things while I still can). Anyway, this 1989 event set the stage
for the discovery of the Atom Totality theory of 7 November
1990.

Before I get to 1990, I need to talk about another book that
was pivotal in the discovery. It was a book, but also a TV
series called COSMOS by Sagan. And I specifically remember
this segment from the TV series with its beautiful Vangelis
music that accompanied this verse:

I had watched on TV the series COSMOS , and
remembered
a paragraph which I looked-up in the book COSMOS
on pages 265-267.

--- quoting from book COSMOS ---

[pages 265-267] There is an idea--strange, haunting,
evocative- one of the most exquisite conjectures in
science or religion. It is entirely undemonstrated;
it may never be proved. But it stirs the blood.
There
is , we are told, an infinite hierarchy of universes,
so that an elementary particle, such as an electron,
in our universe would, if penetrated, reveal itself to
be an entire closed universe. Within it, organized
into the local equivalent of galaxies and smaller
structures, are an immense number of other, much
tinier elementary particles, which are themselves
universe at the next level, and so on forever- an
infinite downward regression, universes within
universes, endlessly. And upward as well. Our
familiar universe of galaxies and stars, planets
and people, would be a single elementary particle
in the next universe up, the first step of another
infinite regress.

--- end quoting COSMOS ---

Actually it was the music that made me tape record
it from the TV while I was in the Navy in the early
1980s and taped it over repeatedly so that for
1/2 hour of tape I would hear the above words
and the Vangelis music over and over again. I no
longer know what exact year that was, perhaps
1983.

So there I was, 1989 with the Pierce crystallizing out
of the Cosmos and with Sagan's Elementary Particle Cosmos
going into the year 1990.

Let me repeat, for more details, anyone can read my earlier
edition of the 2nd edition or possibly my 1991 copyrighted
manuscript that I sent to the Library of Congress and I posted
in the timeframe of 1993 and beyond to the sci newsgroups.

So here is the beginning of 1990, the year 1990 with me
set-up in my mind the Four Pragmatist paragraph of
crystallizing out of the Cosmos and with Sagan's paragraph
in Cosmos TV show of a "elementary particle universe".

So there I was with those two ideas mixing and turning
in my mind in 1989 and 1990, and then a third book that
finally tips the scales and sends me into a major discovery.

This book was the textbook:
Halliday & Resnick textbook PHYSICS, Part 2, Extended
Version , 1986, of page
572. This is a large electron cloud dot picture for
which I quote the caption.
--- quoting ---
CHAP.26 CHARGE AND MATTER.
Figure 26-5
An atom, suggesting the electron
cloud and, above, an enlarged view
of the nucleus.
--- end quoting ---

If you happen to have the book and look at the picture, the dots
are vastly too dense. But it was this picture that connected the dots
(sorry for the pun) for my mind on the morning of 7 November 1990.

You see, the dots of the electron cloud are the
galaxies of the night sky.
The dots of the electron cloud are actual mass chunks
or pieces of the last 6
electrons, the 5f6 of 231PU.

So in 1989 I had the Cosmos as crystallizing out in the future and
the only near perfect thing is an atom. And I had the nested
elementary
particle universe in Sagan's COSMOS tv show. Then on the
morning of 7 November 1990, and putting the Halliday Resnick
physics textbook picture of an Electron-Dot-Cloud to the night
sky of stars and galaxies. Eureka, I had put together that the
Universe was already an Atom and had always been an Atom
and that the nightsky of stars and galaxies were pieces of the
last electrons of an Atom Totality.

So I quickly went to the library in New Hampshire to find out
what atomic element
would fit best the present day Cosmos? And to my delight, it was
the element plutonium. Later I would find out that 231Pu gives the
fine-structure-constant the best, along with the mass ratio of
proton to electron.

The above is a brief summary of the chain of events, and anyone
wanting more details can read my earlier editions or posts to the
sci newsgroups. As I get older, I run the risk of inaccurate memory,
but with age, also, I tend to want to summarize more than prior
renditions.

In my next post I want to recall the Atomic theory history with the
Atom Totality theory history. Especially a report that Democritus
may have believed in a SuperAtom that was the entire Cosmos itself.
It is likely to have been true, with the only hindrance that the
ancients
did not have a chemical table of the periodic elements.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

wrote:

snipped to save on space

I looked it up and I gave it a special name since it occurred
during the Autumn Equinox and called it the Autumnal Electronox
or Electronox for short.

I will change this sentence in the original followed by a (sic).

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Let me just give #9 a rewrite since I made too many typing mistakes
and other mistakes:



There is going to be a point in my life where I no longer am able to
think
back and tell the history of the Atom Totality theory, where I forget
the
succession of events and where my mind is too old or for whatever
reason
unable to tell this story accurately. So it is good that this history
account
is told in every one of these editions before I reach that inability
stage.
And I want to make each edition
better reading than the previous one. This 3rd edition is going to be
shorter.
I can cut out alot of the details and sort of skip to major points. I
am
going to start this history by accounting the history of the discovery
of the
Atom Totality theory, 7 November 1990. I am going to start the story
from
1975 when I was 25 years old and teaching math in Australia and
reading this
book on Pragmatism. Earlier editions give a larger version of this
history,
but I want a abbreviated one now. And this history is going to use
books
as the succession of events.

History of discovery of Atom Totality Theory as per books read:

(1) I read a pretty idea from the mathematician C.S.
Peirce who wrote "The Architecture of Theories" in 1891
that the universe is crystallizing-out.

--- quoting FOUR PRAGMATISTS by I. Scheffler, 1974
---
Peirce's The Architecture of Theories...
...would be a Cosmogonic Philosophy. It would
suppose
that in the beginning - infinitely remote - there was
a chaos
of unpersonalized feeling, which being without
connection or
regularity would properly be without existence. This
feeling,
sporting here and there in pure arbitrariness, would
have
started the germ of a generalizing tendency. Its other
sportings would be evanescent, but this would have a
growing
virtue. Thus, the tendency to habit would be started;
and
from this, with the other principles of evolution, all
the
regularities of the universe would be evolved. At any
time,
however, an element of pure chance survives and will
remain
until the world becomes an absolutely perfect,
rational,
and symmetrical system, in which mind is at last
crystallized in the infinitely distant future.
--- end quoting FOUR PRAGMATISTS ---

The first time I read this was in 1975, and I was so impressed
with that paragraph that I remembered it clearly by 1989
when it would come to me in a torrent of creativity.

I remember in 1989 in my apartment flat in New Hampshire
of this Peirce Cosmology coming into my mind. Almost
out of the blue, for it just came to me where I asked a
question. I had remembered this crystallizing out that
Peirce had written and asked the question, what in the
world is worthy of crystallizing out *into*? Is there anything
in existence worthy of crystallizing-into? And the answer
was, for me in 1989, yes, crystallizing out into becoming
an atom. That atoms were nearly perfect entities and the
only thing near to perfect as far as the world understands
perfect.

And now that I look back from 2009 to 1989 which was
20 years ago (my, time does fly), one would think that
I should have had the Atom Totality theory right then and
there. But actual discovery takes twists and turns and pauses.
The 1989 event for me was the setting-up of the discovery
of the Atom Totality theory. I gave this 1989 event a special
name since it occurred during the Autumn Equinox and called
it the Autumnal Electronox or Electronox for short. This 1989
event set the stage for the discovery of the Atom Totality
theory of 7 November 1990.

Before I get to 1990, I need to talk about another book that
was pivotal in the discovery. It was a book, but also a TV
series called COSMOS by Sagan. And I specifically remember
this segment from the TV series with its beautiful Vangelis
music that accompanied this verse:

(2) I had watched on TV the series COSMOS , and
remembered
a paragraph which I looked-up in the book COSMOS
on pages 265-267.

--- quoting from book COSMOS ---

[pages 265-267] There is an idea--strange, haunting,
evocative- one of the most exquisite conjectures in
science or religion. It is entirely undemonstrated;
it may never be proved. But it stirs the blood.
There
is , we are told, an infinite hierarchy of universes,
so that an elementary particle, such as an electron,
in our universe would, if penetrated, reveal itself to
be an entire closed universe. Within it, organized
into the local equivalent of galaxies and smaller
structures, are an immense number of other, much
tinier elementary particles, which are themselves
universe at the next level, and so on forever- an
infinite downward regression, universes within
universes, endlessly. And upward as well. Our
familiar universe of galaxies and stars, planets
and people, would be a single elementary particle
in the next universe up, the first step of another
infinite regress.

--- end quoting COSMOS ---

Actually it was the music that made me tape record
it from the TV while I was in the Navy in the early
1980s and taped it over repeatedly so that for
1/2 hour of tape I would hear the above words
and the Vangelis music over and over again. I no
longer know what exact year that was, perhaps
1983.

So there I was, 1989 with the Peirce crystallizing out
of the Cosmos and with Sagan's Elementary Particle Cosmos
going into the year 1990.

Let me repeat, for more details, anyone can read my earlier
edition of the 2nd edition or possibly my 1991 copyrighted
manuscript that I sent to the Library of Congress and I posted
in the timeframe of 1993 and beyond to the sci newsgroups.

So here is the beginning of 1990, the year 1990 with me
set-up in my mind the Four Pragmatist paragraph of
crystallizing out of the Cosmos and with Sagan's paragraph
in Cosmos TV show of a "elementary particle universe".

So there I was with those two ideas mixing and turning
in my mind in 1989 and 1990, and then a third book that
finally tips the scales and sends me into a major discovery.

(3) This book was the textbook:
Halliday & Resnick textbook PHYSICS, Part 2, Extended
Version , 1986, of page
572. This is a large electron cloud dot picture for
which I quote the caption.
--- quoting ---
CHAP.26 CHARGE AND MATTER.
Figure 26-5
An atom, suggesting the electron
cloud and, above, an enlarged view
of the nucleus.
--- end quoting ---

If you happen to have the book and look at the picture, the dots
are vastly too dense. But it was this picture that connected the dots
(sorry for the pun) for my mind on the morning of 7 November 1990.

You see, the dots of the electron cloud are the
galaxies of the night sky.
The dots of the electron cloud are actual mass chunks
or pieces of the last 6
electrons, the 5f6 of 231PU.

So in 1989 I had the Cosmos as crystallizing out in the future and
the only near perfect thing is an atom. And I had the nested
elementary
particle universe in Sagan's COSMOS tv show. Then on the
morning of 7 November 1990, and putting the Halliday Resnick
physics textbook picture of an Electron-Dot-Cloud to the night
sky of stars and galaxies. Eureka, I had put together that the
Universe was already an Atom and had always been an Atom
and that the night-sky of stars and galaxies were pieces of the
last electrons of an Atom Totality.

Looking back now, here in 2009, it does not look like it had
to be a huge step forward in logic to go from:
(1) Universe crystallizing out in the future as an atom
(2) Universe as nested elementary-particles

going from (1) and (2) to that of the Night Sky of galaxies are
the dots in the electron-dot-cloud and therefore the Universe
is already an Atom Totality. That the Universe had always
been an Atom Totality.

Reflection back now, it seems as though I should have discovered
the Atom Totality in 1989, but a new discovery often takes a
windy journey rather than a straightline to discovery.

So I quickly went to the library in New Hampshire to find out
what atomic element
would fit best the present day Cosmos? At that moment I
was not looking for exacting detailed evidence of a chemical
element such as the Fine Structure Constant or the Proton to
Electron mass ratio. I was looking for something much more simple
and immediate. I was looking for what element would have a
radius expansion from previous element to give a red shift in
galaxies. And to my delight, it was
the element plutonium. Later I would find out that 231Pu gives the
fine-structure-constant the best, along with the mass ratio of
proton to electron.

The above is a brief summary of the chain of events, and anyone
wanting more details can read my earlier editions or posts to the
sci newsgroups. As I get older, I run the risk of inaccurate memory,
but with age, also, I tend to want to summarize more than prior
renditions.

In my next post I want to recall the Atomic theory history with the
Atom Totality theory history. Especially a report that Democritus
may have believed in a SuperAtom that was the entire Cosmos itself.
It is likely to have been true, with the only hindrance that the
ancients
did not have a chemical table of the periodic elements.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

wrote:
(snipped)
In my next post I want to recall the Atomic theory history with the
Atom Totality theory history. Especially a report that Democritus
may have believed in a SuperAtom that was the entire Cosmos itself.
It is likely to have been true, with the only hindrance that the
ancients
did not have a chemical table of the periodic elements.


I am not going to talk about the Ancient Greeks with the Atomic
Theory.
There is plenty of literature on them. From Thales of Miletus with
amber
and lodestone of (-550 De Rerum Natura). To Leucippus as the founder
of the Atomic Theory and his most famous student Democritus (-400
De Rerum Natura) to Epicurus to Titus Lucretius who wrote De Rerum
Natura (0000 date time).

Notice that I use a system of date time that places the calendar as
the
year in which De Rerum Natura was widespread. So I link Science to
the calendar. So when I think of the year 2009, to me it means two
thousand nine years since De Rerum Natura was widespread and the
Atomic
Theory was here on Earth.

I am not going to dwell on the Ancient Greeks and the Atomic Theory
for it is
easily accessible to anyone wanting as much information as they so
desire.

But I will talk about two other books before the Atom Totality theory
that
existed before I was born and which have a link to the Atom Totality
theory.

To keep my numbering in order this should be the book number (4).

--- start of quote from Encyclopedia Britannica 1992
---
Lemaitre, Georges (b. July 17, 1894, Charleroi,
Belg.--d.
June 20, 1966, Louvain), Belgian astronomer and
cosmologist who formulated the modern big-bang theory,

which holds that the universe began in a cataclysmic
explosion of a small, primeval "super-atom."
.... His works
include Discussion sur l'evolution de l'univers
(1933; "Discussion on the Evolution of the Universe")
and L'Hypothese de l'atome primitif
(1946; "Hypothesis of the Primeval Atom")
--- end of quote from Encyclopedia Britannica 1992 ---

The reason I bring up Lemaitre is that several
times in
his writings he refers to his Big Bang as the
"Primeval Atom"
as a description of the initial Big Bang in its
point-singularity, the universe as a point-complex of
matter radiation. Obviously Lemaitre used "primeval
atom"
as a purely descriptive term never claiming that the
present universe was an atom itself. Anyone whoever
claims to have had the Atom Totality theory would
have to make the obvious next step that they in fact
originated the theory by giving details as to what
chemical element the present universe actually is.
Sagan never had the Atom Totality or else he would
have specified a chemical element. Lemaitre never
had the Atom Totality or he would have specified
a chemical element.

Lemaitre's primeval atom had no effect on my
journey to discovery of that Atom Totality theory.
But just the idea of "primeval atom" as the start of the
Big Bang should have ignited the imagination of
many scientists into the next exciting question--
could the Cosmos be an atom itself? And can we
make a different Born Interpretation of the electron-dot-cloud
to accomodate a Atom Totality with the night sky of
stars and galaxies as tiny pieces of the last electrons
of an Atom Universe? Luckily for me, anyway, there
was no spark of imagination by anyone when learning
of a primeval atom. But I wonder if the French translation
above is really "primeval" or whether it means more of
"primitive". If it means more of "primitive" then there was
likely less of a sparking of imagination.


Science is pragmatic and practical and all great
theories have long
past previous suggestions or hints or forerunners or
one can sort
of "read more into past works" or, someone can
exaggerate past
works to hint of recent discoveries. It is fun to
trace past
histories for strands of thought that hinted of, or
suggested of
the Atom Totality and that is what this article
attempts to do. In
one of the listings, I show where Charles S.
Peirce,
the famous USA pragmatist hinted of Quantum Mechanics
long before
QM was discovered. And that is not to say that Peirce
is the
discoverer of QM but it shows how new important
discoveries have
had past hints. Some past hints have actually been the
catalyst
or booster in the forming of a new discovery.

I have wondered whether Democritus himself by pure
math logic
reasoning came to the conclusion that the universe
itself must
be an atom. For clearly, it follows that if all things
are made-up
of atoms (or is the void between atoms) then this
logically implies
that the whole must be an atom itself (or the void and

clearly it cannot be a void since we exist). Did
Democritus have
the idea that since all matter was made up of atoms
that by pure
math logic implied the entirety is an atom itself? Not
knowing
any physics or any science but just good in math
logic, that if
you make the theory that all things are made up of
atoms, by pure
math logic reasoning implies that the whole is also an
atom itself!

I know Democritus was a math genius for Archimedes
recognized his
talents, but still, I did not expect Democritus to
push his Atomic
Theory to its logical conclusion. Perusing the physics
history
literature, years after I discovered the Atom Totality theory,
I came across this gem.
Book number (5):

--- start quoting A SHORT HISTORY OF ATOMISM
by J. Gregory, Univ. Leeds, 1931, page 4 ---
The traditional atom, the genuine atom, is both quite
indestructible and exceedingly minute. Atoms were
indivisible for Leucippus because they were too minute to be
divided, and for Democritus because they were too hard to be
broken.
If sundry traditions are trustworthy, Democritus allowed all
sizes to atoms: a single Democritean atom might even
be, so some said, as big as the world. The gigantic
Democritean atom, if it ever existed, vanished from the atomistic
tradition.
The subsequent Epicurean atom was too hard to be
broken, but
it was also too small to be seen, and only thought
could
discern it. It did not become doubtful, nor even
admittedly
speculative, for Epicurus was as sure of atoms as if
he had
seen them with his eyes.
--- end quoting A SHORT HISTORY OF ATOMISM
by J. Gregory, Univ. Leeds, 1931, page 4 ---

So what am I to make of this fact. A fact I cannot deny since
there is that book and I own a copy now. It is 1931, and Gregory
must have been referring to some evidence when he says "so some
said, as big as the world." Gregory was not making that up out of
nothing.

So let us say there was some evidence of a Democritean SuperAtom.
Then Democritus would have discovered the Atom Totality theory, and
the only thing holding him back from pinpointing what chemical element
it was, was that he had no chemistry and the periodic table of
chemical
elements that we have in modern times.

Now before I leave this history I should include a broad category of
other books that were very influential. Those chemistry and physics
books I used in High School and College which showed pictures of the
electron-dot-cloud. In High School it was PSSC and in College it was
Chemistry by Mortimer and in Physics it was Halliday and Resnick.
Let me just group them all into a category of books (6) and say they
had pictures of the electron-dot-cloud.

The discovery of the Atom Totality theory was to reinterpret the Born
Interpretation of the electron of an atom. Most everyone imagines the
electron as a tiny ball whizzing around the nucleus. When in fact, the
electron
is a dot-cloud-pattern. We have the electron as a ball when collapsed
wavefunction such as electricity in motion. But when the atom is not
collapsed
which is most of the time, it is in a electron-dot-cloud where its
tiny mass is
smashed like a broken windshield of a car and the tiny pieces
scattered all over
the place. Those tiny pieces, are each a galaxy.

So the discovery of the Atom Totality theory was to discover that the
electron-dot-cloud
is the night-time sky of galaxies.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies