chapt20 "pi" and "e" explained #216 Atom Totality theory

Yes, I am saying that the number of true subshells and shells is not
a 22/7 ratio but is transcendental

I can sharpen that up for you quite a bit. And it shows how poorly
mathematicians have done their job of explaining the difference
between "transcendental and algebraic". When I went to College
the definition of transcendental became: "not algebraic". In
mathematics,
the science of precision, is a poor science when its definitions
between
algebraic and transcendental are such that one is dependent on the
other-- "not algebraic = transcendental".

It is not the first time that mathematicians were unable to clearly
define
one of their own concepts and where a physicist stepped into the
environment and well-defined a concept of mathematics by using
physics. It has happened before, such as the concept of
Superdeterminism
well defining the Bell Inequality mathematics.

But let me sharpen this entire chapter up.

In physics, unlike mathematics, we have a concept of Collapsed
Wavefunction
and Uncollapsed Wavefunction. An algebraic number for mathematics
comes
from a Collapsed Wavefunction in physics. A transcendental number in
mathematics comes from a Uncollapsed Wavefunction.

Example: an electron can be a integral unit as one ball when collapsed
wavefunction
and moving in a copper wire in electricity. But an electron can also
be an infinite
number of dots of an electron-dot-cloud spread over the distance of
infinity which
is the Uncollapsed Wavefunction.

So we begin to see the true difference between Algebraic number and
Transcendental
number. In that a Algebraic Number is **fixed** of all of its digits
such as 1/3
is 0.33333........ where all of its digits are "3" and is not
dependent on time.
But a transcendental number like (pi) is **growing** and dependent on
time. Where
no intelligent lifeform can tell you all of its digits. I can tell you
all of the digits of
1/3 and I can tell you all of the digits of any algebraic number due
to a algebraic formula
that computes all of the digits no matter at what time in the Cosmos
we are living
and setting a computer to spew out the nth digit.

But a transcendental number like (pi) or (e) are not fixed and are
growing and changing.
So that we are never able to spew out every nth digit of pi but must
rely on **time
and environment of the Cosmos** to get at the far off nth digit.

To be Transcendental means that intelligent life is limited to an nth
digit related to
time of the Cosmos in which they are determining the nth digit. To be
Algebraic
there is no time constraint on telling someone the "nth digit" of that
number.

If humanity had been borne in a Helium Atom Totality instead of a
Plutonium Atom
Totality, then the digits for pi would have been closer to 1/1 than
22/7. In the next
Future-Atom Totality of 23 subshells instead of 22 subshells, the
advanced life
measuring and using "pi" will peg pi at 23/7, far larger than our
"pi" of today.

This concept of a number being fixed or growing is hard and difficult
for the
mathematics community for they have a hard time of understanding that
mathematics
itself is "time dependent" and not "time independent". Mathematicians
have assumed
and believed up to 1990s before the Atom Totality theory that
mathematics is
universal and not dependent on time. That was a false assumption. The
fundamental
difference between algebraic and transcendental is the issue of time
dependency.
Pi and (e) are numbers whose value is not fixed but growing whereas
algebraic
numbers are all fixed. But in a new atom totality of the future, all
the numbers change
even the Algebraic numbers we know of now such as 1/3. So I cannot say
that
a number like 1/3 is fixed forever. When the value of pi changes
drastically in a future
Atom Totality then all the numbers, including Algebraic Numbers change
in value.

One has to keep in mind that a future-Atom Totality changes geometry
drastically
and so both the algebraic and transcendental numbers of the future
have to change
to harmonize with the changed geometry.

Also, I should remark that the present ideas that the transcendental
numbers are not
of the same order of infinity as the algebraic numbers is a fake idea
of current
and present math community. It is likely that there are only two
transcendental numbers
in all of existence and that all the transcendental numbers are
equinumerous with the
algebraic numbers. So that all transcendental numbers are merely
scalars of pi and
e.

That pi was a different number some 20 billion years ago and not the
same number
that pi is today.

The Big Bang theory could never step into a environment of mathematics
and tell
the mathematicians the meaning of (pi) of (e) and correct their poor
and lousy
definitions and understanding of algebraic versus transcendental. The
Big Bang
took a back seat to mathematics and was assuming that mathematics is
more
powerful than physics and where physics takes its meaning from
mathematics.

The Atom Totality theory puts physics and math in proper place.
Physics determines
mathematics and Physics is the King of science and mathematics is a
small
tiny subset of physics.

One of the implications of a growing (pi) that fits and matches the
Atom
Totality of a specific time is that "pi" and "e" can increase or
decrease
in value
from one Cosmos to another Cosmos. That the value of pi in a Lead or
Thorium
or Plutonium or Element 96 Atom Totality is not a assured increase in
value
but where pi can decrease in a future Atom Totality. As the Chemical
Elements
go up in atomic number, does not automatically mean the value of (pi)
and
(e) goes up incrementally, but rather, has periods of time where the
value decreases
from previous Cosmos. This would correspond to redshifts and
blueshifts in galaxies.

Summary: so the idea that (pi) is a growing number and not fixed gives
it the meaning
of transcendental number and also that (pi) value can both increase
or
decrease in one Cosmic Period. As the Future-Atom Totality may have
either
and increase in the value of pi or a decrease in the value of pi
depending on whether
the subshells goes from 22 to 23 or 24 or 25 or 26 and whether the
shells goes
from 7 to 8 or 9. So there are episodes where the Atom Totality has a
decrease
in value of pi.

Now I wonder if such episodes leave a Cosmic Fossil?? Sort of like a
tree
ring pattern. Perhaps the Cosmic Microwave Radiation has left behind a
imprint
of when "pi" was of different values.

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

In the first three editions of this book I have talked about "pi and
e" but let me begin to
use the number "i" also in the Atom Totality theory. That in the Big
Bang theory, it is
deaf dumb and silent about any explanation of the numbers of
mathematics. But in
the Atom Totality theory, why numbers have the value they do possess,
must be
explained by the true theory of the universe. Why does pi have the
value 3.14....
and "e" the value of 2.71..... and "i" the value of sqrt(-1). Well the
Atom Totality says
the values are because the last electron in plutonium is 22 subshells
inside of 7 shells
for which 19 are occupied in rational number form. The value of "i" is
because an
electron must be a negative-one and that the difference between
Elliptic geometry
versus Euclidean geometry is a factor of the square-root of (-1) or a
factor of the
squaring of (-1) to end up with (-1).

You see, there are two NonEuclidean geometries of Elliptic and
Hyperbolic and to
move between NonEuclidean to Euclidean and back and forth is a factor
of either
square-root of (-1) or the squaring of (-1) to end up with (-1).

In math, the rule of thumb of what "i" is physically is a 90 degree
rotation. In physics
of the Atom Totality, "i" is a translation of numbers in NonEuclidean
Geometry as if
those numbers were in Euclidean Geometry.

For example look at this curve on a sphere surface "(" for it is in
Elliptic Geometry
and look at this curve on a hyperbola ")" and if I put the two
together as this:

)( they cancel giving a straight line of Euclidean. So the "i" number
in mathematics
and physics is the reality that 90 + 90 degrees is 180 degrees is that
Elliptic
with Hyperbolic translates into Euclidean.

--- from 2nd edition ---
One
topic that was raised recently
is the question of when the electron was assigned the value of (-1). I
believe the history of physics of the electron assigned -1 charge
goes back to Ben Franklin as to positive and negative charges but the
electron was not
fully developed until about the late 1800s and early 1900s.

So the question is: was it arbitrary to assign the electron as (-1) or
was it a lucky guess
for which the laws of physics can only have the electron as (-1)?

In the 1990s I vaguely remember my mind traversing this question but I
could not remember
what my answer was back then. I have a "fishy feeling" that some
feature of physics demanded
that the electron be assigned the (-1) value in order for satisfying
some physics equations.

Was it the negative sign in the Maxwell Equation Theory of Faraday's
Law? If the electron
had been assigned a (+1) value, would the Maxwell Equations not come
out properly?

I have forgotten what my answer to this assigning of electron as (-1)
was in the history of
physics, but I am going to venture into proving that the electron has
to be assigned (-1)
due to the Atom Totality theory.

Notice that the number (i) appears alot in physics and is the
sqrt(-1). Notice that mathematics
is incomplete unless it has a sqrt(-1).

Now imagine if physics history had assigned the electron as (+1)
instead of (-1). And then humanity
discovers the Atom Totality theory. And then humanity realizes that
the Euler Identity
of e^(pi)(i) = -1 is the math description of the Observable Cosmos
where the (-1) is the fact that
we are living in the last electron of the 5f6. And the (i) within that
Identity is the fact of orthogonal
energy term of the electron space universe.

What I am trying to say quickly is that the Atom Totality Theory
proves that the assigning
of the electron as (-1) was never an arbitrary exercise. That the
electron had to have the
value of (-1) and could never take the value of (+1).

But I do suspect that other parts of physics already found out that
the electron charge value
had to be (-1) such as the Maxwell Equations. If not, well, then this
post is a historic post
because it shows us that the charge value of the electron has to be
(-1).

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