Archimedes Plutonium

2018-01-15 04:20:10 UTC

Proofs that the Real Electron=muon, Real Proton=840MeV, and that the .5MeV particle was the magnetic monopole, afterall

12 PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon

by Archimedes Plutonium

Proofs that the Real Electron=muon and that the .5MeV particle was the magnetic monopole, afterall

PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon

1st proof is chemical bonding cannot exist with momentum of 938 versus .5MeV

Chemical Bonds are covalent, ionic, metallic. You simply cannot get atoms to bond if the electron is thought of as the .5MeV particle, only with a muon at 105 MeV and the proton at 840 MeV with neutron at 945 MeV do you have the physics of angular momentum that allows bonding in Chemistry. The .5MeV particle was, all along a magnetic monopole of a photon with .5 MeV charge energy, not rest mass energy.

2nd proof with the direct observance some years back in Poland of a 840 Mev particle along with 105 MeV particle of the hydrogen atom.

Hello, well i found the below on the internet. I need a 840MeV particle that is the Real Proton. I have asked to look for it in the production of Muons. Is the below a production of muons along with 840 MeV particles?

Quoting

Indication For A Broad J(pc) = 2++ Meson At 840-mev Produced In The Reaction Pi- P ---> Pi+ Pi- N At High |t|

K. Rybicki, I. Sakrejda (Cracow, INP)

1985 - 10 pages

Z.Phys. C28 (1985) 65-74

DOI: 10.1007/BF01550250

Abstract (Springer)

The reaction π−p→π+π−n has been studied at 17.2 GeV/c and 63 GeV/c. A partial wave analysis shows a fairly broad (∼250 MeV) resonance at about 840 MeV. This object, already visible in moments of the angular distribution, is produced in theD wave with helicitym=2 via unnatural exchange. The cross section for the reaction π−p→D2U(840)n is only by an order of magnitude lower than that of ϱ(770) and falls likepLAB−2.1±0.3. We have not been able to explain this object by systematic experimental effects like acceptance and/orN* reflections; neither is the nature of the resonance (if real) clear to us.

--- end quote ---

3rd proof-- pull plug out of electrical socket and notice light flash. That flash of light was the magnetic monopoles as photons with charge energy of .5MeV, for the monopoles compose all electric currents.

4th proof is that the radius of the hydrogen proton shrinks too much when a muon is injected and that contradicts Standard Model. The reason is obvious-- the proton is 840 MeV electron is muon and then you add a second muon.

--- Quoting from www, Ars Technica, Researchers orbit a muon around an atom, confirm physics is broken ---

So, the proton radius puzzle remains a puzzle. The team behind this new work point to a number of measurements that could potentially help clarify it. Some of them involve better measurements with normal electrons; others involve scattering muons off protons themselves to see if there's an unknown force at work. The latter would tell us whether anything beyond the Standard Model will be needed to explain this puzzle.

--- end Quote ---

5th proof electrochemical battery is not explainable as Faraday law unless you concede the battery is a thrusting bar magnet, and thus, the battery is explained as a dipole magnet of the anode and cathode and the electrolyte solution is the ferromagnetism of spins all lined up. And thus a current in the circuit is because the battery as a thrusting magnet forces monopoles down the circuit wire.

6th proof, spin is charge, and charge is spin and the only particle for that is a ratio of permittivity to permeability as that of 10^-6/ 10^-12 is a charge energy of 10^6 or 1 MeV for photon charge energy, and that leaves the proton, electron=muon, monopole with .5MeV charge energy.

7th proof the Maxwell Equations are not symmetrical without current being the flow of magnetic monopoles.

8th proof, now, a straightforward proof that the muon is the real-electron can come from ion theory. The trouble is that weeding out a proof of electron = muon, is that we get entangled with the magnetic monopole. So, the proof is simple for ion theory, to prove the muon = real electron. Take for example iron Fe atoms, they are 26 protons, 26 electrons=muons

Now iron has ion states of -4, -2, -1, +1, +2, +3, +4, +5 +6, +7

So, suppose the electron = .5MeV particle and not the 105 MeV particle

That would mean Iron can exist as iron with 26 protons and only 19 electrons at one extreme and 26 protons and 30 electrons at the other extreme.

Now in Maxwell theory, there is a law that enforces Conservation of Energy, called the Lenz law in Faraday law. Otherwise, you have unlimited energy and Nature does not have unlimited energy.

So that in atoms, the protons become a thrusting bar magnet and the electrons= real-electrons are the closed loop of wire (inert gases are closed loop wires and why bonding exists is to close the loop of real-electron structure).

So, the proof that .5MeV are not electrons, is that iron bonds readily with other iron forming a compound of iron, the metal iron and metallic bond is due to iron atoms wanting to close the loop of their 26 Real Electrons. They close that loop by the metallic bond. That means, the existence of ions from -4 to +7 is unrelated altogether from Electron configuration. That ions are some other particle behavior but not the electron nor proton behavior.

The reason iron exists as iron from Fe-4 to Fe+7 is that the particle .5MeV is a surface interloper particle of atoms, it is a add-on particle not the integral electron of atoms. If the monopole were the electron we break conservation of energy by all these interlopers. The reason the chemical table is all built around the inert gases, is because Faraday's law must be obeyed and thus atoms with a closed loop of their electrons seek no bonding of electrons= muons. But atoms that have no closed loop of their muons, seek that closed loop structure and thus, they form covalent, ionic, metallic bonds with other muons of other atoms.

9th Proof. In Chemistry, it is rare, that a atom loses or gains any Real-Electron=muon.

And that is a 9th proof that Real Electron=muon, that beta decay in Old Physics, was not the electron of atoms but the transfer of Magnetic Monopoles.

The only real radioactive decay mode is the helium nucleus-- alpha decay

But there is never a Real Electron decay for that would mean muons spewed out of atoms. Nor do we see protons spewed out of atoms, Real Proton = 840 MeV. The so called hydrogen nucleus of a 938 MeV is not radioactive decay, for it is still a 840 proton + 105 muon = hydrogen atom.

10th Proof. Well, I spoke of the internal heart or core of the concept of Chemistry, that the proton/s and electron/s are two parts of the Faraday Law. The protons are the thrusting bar magnet and the electrons= muons forms the closed loop of wire. Essentially that is the heart and core of atomic physics, a replay of Faraday's law with protons and electrons.

But, however, the electrons= muons only forms a closed loop wire for Faraday's law in the inert gases, the helium, neon, argon, etc and all other atoms want to have that closed loop configuration. Thus, is borne the Chemistry of bonding. Chemistry is borne. So that one atom without a closed loop configuration bonds with another atom to achieve that goal. So chemistry bonding is that of muons bonded to other muons in different atoms.

Now, can these .5 MeV particles fulfill the atoms need to make their muons a closed loop? Obviously not, because ions of atoms such as Fe, iron, swing from -4 to +7 in ions, so that proves ions cannot solve a atom's problem of its electron structure being less than closed loop. Only muons of other atoms can fulfill a atom's need to be closed loop.

11th Proof. Solving the Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly, alongside proton radius shrunk

--- Quoting from www, Ars Technica, Researchers orbit a muon around an atom, confirm physics is broken ---

So, the proton radius puzzle remains a puzzle. The team behind this new work point to a number of measurements that could potentially help clarify it. Some of them involve better measurements with normal electrons; others involve scattering muons off protons themselves to see if there's an unknown force at work. The latter would tell us whether anything beyond the Standard Model will be needed to explain this puzzle.

--- end Quote ---

Now in re-reading that Ars article on proton radius shrinking when a hydrogen atom of 840 MeV proton with electron = 105 MeV and then a second muon is tried to be compounded-- will of course, shrink the proton radius for the two muons with 1 proton all three are centered at the center of the proton.

But in re-reading was mentioned an anomaly I was not familiar with-- Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly.

And reading some results of that, I find surprizing for it was Feynman who claimed Electrodynamics was the supreme physics theory in accuracy of prediction.

But the anomaly is off by a mere .1%, which seems very very small to be not even an anomaly. Trouble is, the electron of Old Physics was found to be so accurate as to be described as physic's most precise finding ever, and that makes the .1% discrepancy ever so much larger.

Now, I was able to explain away the proton radius anomaly because the proton is not 938 MeV but is 840 MeV and the electron is not the .5MeV particle but rather is 105 MeV.

So, can I explain away the Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly. I believe I can easily. For if you consider that what Old Physics measured as the electron magnetic moment was none other than the monopole as a dressed up photon magnetic moment. And it is easily seen that in EM theory the permeability constant is "exact" no uncertainty at 1.26*10^-6 H/m.

So, it is no wonder that Old Physics thought their electron magnetic moment in Quantum Electrodynamics was so ultra ultra precise-- for, they never measured the magnetic moment of the electron, but instead a magnetic monopole of the dressed up .5 MeV particle.

Then, when it came time to measure the magnetic moment of the muon, the real-true-electron, there is this .1% discrepancy, but there are discrepancies in the proton and neutron etc.

So, once we realized the Real Electron is the muon, afterall, there is no magnetic moment anomaly.

12th proof -- Static Electricity Re: Proofs that the Real Electron=muon

Alright, I need a 12th proof, for I do not want to neglect what is probably our first encounter with electricity-- static electricity. As we walk across a carpet and touch something we experience a spark. Trouble with static electricity, is that the concept makes out the atom as a flimsy structure, really really flimsy structure that electrons of atoms can be picked off so easily, and from very many diverse materials. One would think the structure of atoms was built of stronger stuff. And that is what the Electron = Muon concept is about, that it is so very very hard to separate a electron from its atom, just like separating a proton out of a nucleus. So the subject of static electricity is this interloper particle, this surface superficial particle that is easily "whipped up" as the magnetic monopole, just as easy as producing electricity in a Faraday Law demonstration of a thrusting bar magnet in closed loop of wire. For, we can easily imagine that our walk across a carpet is similar to a thrusting bar magnet and then the closed loop wire is when we touch something, having built up some monopoles in our body.

Old Physics would say that we picked up electrons on the carpet, and as we touch something, remit that imbalance of electrons.

New Physics would say that we picked up magnetic monopoles.

Now let us look at other static electric experiments. For when we rub a glass rod (+1) with silk, or rub a plastic rod (-1) with wool. Here again, Old Physics would say we pick off electrons of atoms.

New Physics would say, no, the atoms are still composed of all their electrons and protons. The only thing changed with the rubbing is that energy of the rub transfers to the magnetic monopole energy-- packets of .5MeV monopoles of charge energy. And the energy of rubbing becomes monopoles. These are those closed Lines of Force of a magnet, and the moment we touch something these stored up monopoles, flow from our body to that of the touched object.

How is that a proof the electron = muon?

Simple, in that the carpet, or plastic rod (-1) with wool or glass rod (+1) with silk, are materials that are electrically neutral substances, for the rubbing action was transformed not into free electrons, but was formed into monopoles. These substances remain electrically neutral, and the only change is that the rub created magnetic monopoles-- some + charged monopoles, some - charged monopoles, and these monopoles are superficial to the atoms where they formed.

Static Electricity is merely stored monopoles. Monopoles are conservation of energy, for the rubbing had to be transformed into some energy packets and that is-- monopoles of charge energy.

In the experiment of where we pick up bits of paper from either the glass rod or the plastic rod due to static electricity. What is happening here, is that the rod is not involved with the Real Electrons of atoms, but is involved with the superficial surface charged particle that is the magnetic monopole.

Now the electroscope is explained much much easier with magnetic monopoles rather than the silly electrons on one leaf pushing away the electrons on the second leaf.

For consider instead a closed loop line of force between the two leafs

/\

O

Where the leafs start out as ||

Then comes the charged rod of monopoles sending down a monopole closed loop O that pushes apart the two leafs.

Now i have two gold leafs and if true should leave the push apart looking more like this () rather than this /\. And that is what i have ()

by Archimedes Plutonium

------------------

-------------------

Moroney says he weighed the electron in High School, and then got a engineering degree, but how is that possible when he cannot even do math percentage correctly. Either Moroney is a liar or the world is nothing but fools.

Michael Moroney is not only a failure of math, --must have have been burnt out at school-- but also an insane crank on sci.math for 23 years now. I have often asked Google to please engineer a delete key so original authors of a thread can develop their own thread without these insane stalking poopers pooping up (Moroney a 23 year stalker). Let original authors delete any post in their thread which is unfit. Let insane stalkers make their own threads so they can crap all they wish without interrupting those doing serious science.

MAKE sci.math a Level Playing field, and stop tilting sci.math in favor of moron stalkers.

Drs. John Bush, Herman Chernoff of MIT are you as stupid as Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = monopole

MIT math dept.

Artin, Michael

Emeritus Professor of Mathematics

Algebraic Geometry, Non-Commutative Algebra

Bazant, Martin

Professor of Chemical Engineering and Applied Mathematics

Applied Mathematics, Electrokinetics, Microfluidics and Electrochemistry

Berger, Bonnie

Simons Professor of Mathematics

Theoretical Computer Science, Computational Biological Modeling

Bezrukavnikov, Roman

Professor of Mathematics

Representation Theory, Algebraic Geometry

Borodin, Alexei

Professor of Mathematics

Integrable Probability

Bush, John

Associate Department Head

Professor of Applied Mathematics

Academic Officer

Fluid Dynamics

Chernoff, Herman

Emeritus Professor of Applied Mathematics

Statistics, Probability

Cohn, Henry

Adjunct Professor

Discrete Mathematics

Colding, Tobias Holck

Cecil and Ida Green Distinguished Professor of Mathematics

Pure Mathematics Committee Chair

Differential Geometry, Partial Differential Equations

*On Leave Fall and Spring semesters*

Demanet, Laurent

Associate Professor of Applied Mathematics

Applied analysis, Scientific Computing

Dudley, Richard

Emeritus Professor of Mathematics

Probability, Statistics

Dunkel, Jörn

Assistant Professor of Applied Mathematics

Physical Applied Mathematics

Edelman, Alan

Professor of Applied Mathematics

Parallel Computing, Numerical Linear Algebra, Random Matrices

Etingof, Pavel

Professor of Mathematics

Representation Theory, Quantum Groups, Noncommutative Algebra

Freedman, Daniel

Emeritus Professor of Applied Mathematics

Theoretical Physics, Supergravity, Supersymmetry

Goemans, Michel

Interim Department Head

Professor of Mathematics

Theoretical Computer Science, Combinatorial Optimization

Gorin, Vadim

Assistant Professor of Mathematics

Probability, Representation Theory

Greenspan, Harvey

Emeritus Professor of Applied Mathematics

Fluid Mechanics

Guillemin, Victor

Professor of Mathematics

Differential Geometry

Guth, Larry

Professor of Mathematics

Metric geometry, harmonic analysis, extremal combinatorics

Helgason, Sigurdur

Emeritus Professor of Mathematics

Geometric Analysis

Hosoi, Anette

Professor of Mechanical Engineering

MacVicar Faculty Fellow

Fluid Dynamics, Numerical Analysis

Jerison, David

Professor of Mathematics

Partial Differential Equations, Fourier Analysis

Johnson, Steven

Professor of Applied Mathematics

Waves, PDEs, Scientific Computing

Kac, Victor

Professor of Mathematics

Algebra, Mathematical Physics

Mark Hyman, Jr. Career Development Associate Professor of Applied Mathematics

Theoretical Computer Science

Kleiman, Steven

Emeritus Professor of Mathematics

Algebraic Geometry, Commutative Algebra

Kleitman, Daniel

Emeritus Professor of Applied Mathematics

Combinatorics, Operations Research

Lawrie, Andrew

Assistant Professor of Mathematics

Analysis, Geometric PDEs

Leighton, Tom

Professor of Applied Mathematics

Theoretical Computer Science, Combinatorics

Lusztig, George

Abdun-Nur Professor of Mathematics

Group Representations, Algebraic Groups

Mattuck, Arthur

Emeritus Professor of Mathematics

Algebraic Geometry

Maulik, Davesh

Professor of Mathematics

Algebraic Geometry

Melrose, Richard

Professor of Mathematics

Partial Differential Equations, Differential Geometry

Miller, Haynes

Professor of Mathematics

Algebraic Topology

Minicozzi, William

Singer Professor of Mathematics

Geometric Analysis, PDEs

Moitra, Ankur

Rockwell International Career Development Associate Professor of Mathematics

Theoretical Computer Science, Machine Learning

Mossel, Elchanan

Professor of Mathematics

Probability, Algorithms and Inference

Mrowka, Tomasz

Professor of Mathematics

Gauge Theory, Differential Geometry

On Leave Fall and Spring semesters

Munkres, James

Emeritus Professor of Mathematics

Differential Topology

Neguț, Andrei

Assistant Professor of Mathematics

Algebraic Geometry, Representation Theory

On Leave Spring semester

Pixton, Aaron

Class of 1957 Career Development Assistant Professor

Algebraic Geometry

On Leave Spring semester

Poonen, Bjorn

Claude Shannon Professor of Mathematics

Algebraic Geometry, Number Theory

Postnikov, Alexander

Professor of Applied Mathematics

Algebraic Combinatorics

Rigollet, Philippe

Associate Professor of Mathematics

Statistics, Machine Learning

Rosales, Rodolfo

Professor of Applied Mathematics

Nonlinear Waves, Fluid Mechanics, Material Sciences, Numerical pde

Saccà, Giulia

Assistant Professor of Mathematics

Sacks, Gerald

Emeritus Professor of Mathematical Logic

Mathematical Logic, Recursion Theory, Computational Set Theory

Seidel, Paul

Levinson Professor of Mathematics

Mirror Symmetry

On Leave Fall and Spring semesters

Sheffield, Scott

Leighton Family Professor of Mathematics

Probability and Mathematical Physics

Shor, Peter

Morss Professor of Applied Mathematics

Applied Mathematics Committee Chair

Quantum Computation, Quantum Information

Singer, Isadore

Emeritus Institute Professor

Differential Geometry, Partial Differential Equations, Mathematical Physics

Sipser, Michael

Dean of School of Science

Donner Professor of Mathematics

MacVicar Faculty Fellow

Algorithms, Complexity Theory

Speck, Jared

Cecil and Ida B. Green Career Development Associate Professor of Mathematics

Analysis related to Mathematical Physics, General Relativity, PDEs

Staffilani, Gigliola

Abby Rockefeller Mauze Professor of Mathematics

Analysis: Dispersive Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations

On Leave Fall and Spring semesters

Stanley, Richard

Professor of Mathematics

Algebraic Combinatorics

Stark, Harold

Emeritus Professor of Mathematics

Number Theory

Strang, Gilbert

MathWorks Professor of Mathematics

Stroock, Daniel

Emeritus Professor of Mathematics

Probability, Stochastic Analysis

Tabuada, Goncalo

Associate Professor of Mathematics

Algebraic Topology, Noncommutative Algebraic Geometry

Toomre, Alar

Emeritus Professor of Applied Mathematics

Astrophysics, Stellar Dynamics, Fluid Mechanics

Vogan, David

Norbert Wiener Professor of Mathematics

Group Representations, Lie Theory

/\-------/\

\::O:::O::/

(::_ ^ _::)

\_`-----'_/

You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in MIT?

And, even though you-- professors of math, want to remain stupid in Calculus and Physics, your students deserve better.

12 PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon

by Archimedes Plutonium

Proofs that the Real Electron=muon and that the .5MeV particle was the magnetic monopole, afterall

PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon

1st proof is chemical bonding cannot exist with momentum of 938 versus .5MeV

Chemical Bonds are covalent, ionic, metallic. You simply cannot get atoms to bond if the electron is thought of as the .5MeV particle, only with a muon at 105 MeV and the proton at 840 MeV with neutron at 945 MeV do you have the physics of angular momentum that allows bonding in Chemistry. The .5MeV particle was, all along a magnetic monopole of a photon with .5 MeV charge energy, not rest mass energy.

2nd proof with the direct observance some years back in Poland of a 840 Mev particle along with 105 MeV particle of the hydrogen atom.

Hello, well i found the below on the internet. I need a 840MeV particle that is the Real Proton. I have asked to look for it in the production of Muons. Is the below a production of muons along with 840 MeV particles?

Quoting

Indication For A Broad J(pc) = 2++ Meson At 840-mev Produced In The Reaction Pi- P ---> Pi+ Pi- N At High |t|

K. Rybicki, I. Sakrejda (Cracow, INP)

1985 - 10 pages

Z.Phys. C28 (1985) 65-74

DOI: 10.1007/BF01550250

Abstract (Springer)

The reaction π−p→π+π−n has been studied at 17.2 GeV/c and 63 GeV/c. A partial wave analysis shows a fairly broad (∼250 MeV) resonance at about 840 MeV. This object, already visible in moments of the angular distribution, is produced in theD wave with helicitym=2 via unnatural exchange. The cross section for the reaction π−p→D2U(840)n is only by an order of magnitude lower than that of ϱ(770) and falls likepLAB−2.1±0.3. We have not been able to explain this object by systematic experimental effects like acceptance and/orN* reflections; neither is the nature of the resonance (if real) clear to us.

--- end quote ---

3rd proof-- pull plug out of electrical socket and notice light flash. That flash of light was the magnetic monopoles as photons with charge energy of .5MeV, for the monopoles compose all electric currents.

4th proof is that the radius of the hydrogen proton shrinks too much when a muon is injected and that contradicts Standard Model. The reason is obvious-- the proton is 840 MeV electron is muon and then you add a second muon.

--- Quoting from www, Ars Technica, Researchers orbit a muon around an atom, confirm physics is broken ---

So, the proton radius puzzle remains a puzzle. The team behind this new work point to a number of measurements that could potentially help clarify it. Some of them involve better measurements with normal electrons; others involve scattering muons off protons themselves to see if there's an unknown force at work. The latter would tell us whether anything beyond the Standard Model will be needed to explain this puzzle.

--- end Quote ---

5th proof electrochemical battery is not explainable as Faraday law unless you concede the battery is a thrusting bar magnet, and thus, the battery is explained as a dipole magnet of the anode and cathode and the electrolyte solution is the ferromagnetism of spins all lined up. And thus a current in the circuit is because the battery as a thrusting magnet forces monopoles down the circuit wire.

6th proof, spin is charge, and charge is spin and the only particle for that is a ratio of permittivity to permeability as that of 10^-6/ 10^-12 is a charge energy of 10^6 or 1 MeV for photon charge energy, and that leaves the proton, electron=muon, monopole with .5MeV charge energy.

7th proof the Maxwell Equations are not symmetrical without current being the flow of magnetic monopoles.

8th proof, now, a straightforward proof that the muon is the real-electron can come from ion theory. The trouble is that weeding out a proof of electron = muon, is that we get entangled with the magnetic monopole. So, the proof is simple for ion theory, to prove the muon = real electron. Take for example iron Fe atoms, they are 26 protons, 26 electrons=muons

Now iron has ion states of -4, -2, -1, +1, +2, +3, +4, +5 +6, +7

So, suppose the electron = .5MeV particle and not the 105 MeV particle

That would mean Iron can exist as iron with 26 protons and only 19 electrons at one extreme and 26 protons and 30 electrons at the other extreme.

Now in Maxwell theory, there is a law that enforces Conservation of Energy, called the Lenz law in Faraday law. Otherwise, you have unlimited energy and Nature does not have unlimited energy.

So that in atoms, the protons become a thrusting bar magnet and the electrons= real-electrons are the closed loop of wire (inert gases are closed loop wires and why bonding exists is to close the loop of real-electron structure).

So, the proof that .5MeV are not electrons, is that iron bonds readily with other iron forming a compound of iron, the metal iron and metallic bond is due to iron atoms wanting to close the loop of their 26 Real Electrons. They close that loop by the metallic bond. That means, the existence of ions from -4 to +7 is unrelated altogether from Electron configuration. That ions are some other particle behavior but not the electron nor proton behavior.

The reason iron exists as iron from Fe-4 to Fe+7 is that the particle .5MeV is a surface interloper particle of atoms, it is a add-on particle not the integral electron of atoms. If the monopole were the electron we break conservation of energy by all these interlopers. The reason the chemical table is all built around the inert gases, is because Faraday's law must be obeyed and thus atoms with a closed loop of their electrons seek no bonding of electrons= muons. But atoms that have no closed loop of their muons, seek that closed loop structure and thus, they form covalent, ionic, metallic bonds with other muons of other atoms.

9th Proof. In Chemistry, it is rare, that a atom loses or gains any Real-Electron=muon.

And that is a 9th proof that Real Electron=muon, that beta decay in Old Physics, was not the electron of atoms but the transfer of Magnetic Monopoles.

The only real radioactive decay mode is the helium nucleus-- alpha decay

But there is never a Real Electron decay for that would mean muons spewed out of atoms. Nor do we see protons spewed out of atoms, Real Proton = 840 MeV. The so called hydrogen nucleus of a 938 MeV is not radioactive decay, for it is still a 840 proton + 105 muon = hydrogen atom.

10th Proof. Well, I spoke of the internal heart or core of the concept of Chemistry, that the proton/s and electron/s are two parts of the Faraday Law. The protons are the thrusting bar magnet and the electrons= muons forms the closed loop of wire. Essentially that is the heart and core of atomic physics, a replay of Faraday's law with protons and electrons.

But, however, the electrons= muons only forms a closed loop wire for Faraday's law in the inert gases, the helium, neon, argon, etc and all other atoms want to have that closed loop configuration. Thus, is borne the Chemistry of bonding. Chemistry is borne. So that one atom without a closed loop configuration bonds with another atom to achieve that goal. So chemistry bonding is that of muons bonded to other muons in different atoms.

Now, can these .5 MeV particles fulfill the atoms need to make their muons a closed loop? Obviously not, because ions of atoms such as Fe, iron, swing from -4 to +7 in ions, so that proves ions cannot solve a atom's problem of its electron structure being less than closed loop. Only muons of other atoms can fulfill a atom's need to be closed loop.

11th Proof. Solving the Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly, alongside proton radius shrunk

--- Quoting from www, Ars Technica, Researchers orbit a muon around an atom, confirm physics is broken ---

So, the proton radius puzzle remains a puzzle. The team behind this new work point to a number of measurements that could potentially help clarify it. Some of them involve better measurements with normal electrons; others involve scattering muons off protons themselves to see if there's an unknown force at work. The latter would tell us whether anything beyond the Standard Model will be needed to explain this puzzle.

--- end Quote ---

Now in re-reading that Ars article on proton radius shrinking when a hydrogen atom of 840 MeV proton with electron = 105 MeV and then a second muon is tried to be compounded-- will of course, shrink the proton radius for the two muons with 1 proton all three are centered at the center of the proton.

But in re-reading was mentioned an anomaly I was not familiar with-- Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly.

And reading some results of that, I find surprizing for it was Feynman who claimed Electrodynamics was the supreme physics theory in accuracy of prediction.

But the anomaly is off by a mere .1%, which seems very very small to be not even an anomaly. Trouble is, the electron of Old Physics was found to be so accurate as to be described as physic's most precise finding ever, and that makes the .1% discrepancy ever so much larger.

Now, I was able to explain away the proton radius anomaly because the proton is not 938 MeV but is 840 MeV and the electron is not the .5MeV particle but rather is 105 MeV.

So, can I explain away the Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly. I believe I can easily. For if you consider that what Old Physics measured as the electron magnetic moment was none other than the monopole as a dressed up photon magnetic moment. And it is easily seen that in EM theory the permeability constant is "exact" no uncertainty at 1.26*10^-6 H/m.

So, it is no wonder that Old Physics thought their electron magnetic moment in Quantum Electrodynamics was so ultra ultra precise-- for, they never measured the magnetic moment of the electron, but instead a magnetic monopole of the dressed up .5 MeV particle.

Then, when it came time to measure the magnetic moment of the muon, the real-true-electron, there is this .1% discrepancy, but there are discrepancies in the proton and neutron etc.

So, once we realized the Real Electron is the muon, afterall, there is no magnetic moment anomaly.

12th proof -- Static Electricity Re: Proofs that the Real Electron=muon

Alright, I need a 12th proof, for I do not want to neglect what is probably our first encounter with electricity-- static electricity. As we walk across a carpet and touch something we experience a spark. Trouble with static electricity, is that the concept makes out the atom as a flimsy structure, really really flimsy structure that electrons of atoms can be picked off so easily, and from very many diverse materials. One would think the structure of atoms was built of stronger stuff. And that is what the Electron = Muon concept is about, that it is so very very hard to separate a electron from its atom, just like separating a proton out of a nucleus. So the subject of static electricity is this interloper particle, this surface superficial particle that is easily "whipped up" as the magnetic monopole, just as easy as producing electricity in a Faraday Law demonstration of a thrusting bar magnet in closed loop of wire. For, we can easily imagine that our walk across a carpet is similar to a thrusting bar magnet and then the closed loop wire is when we touch something, having built up some monopoles in our body.

Old Physics would say that we picked up electrons on the carpet, and as we touch something, remit that imbalance of electrons.

New Physics would say that we picked up magnetic monopoles.

Now let us look at other static electric experiments. For when we rub a glass rod (+1) with silk, or rub a plastic rod (-1) with wool. Here again, Old Physics would say we pick off electrons of atoms.

New Physics would say, no, the atoms are still composed of all their electrons and protons. The only thing changed with the rubbing is that energy of the rub transfers to the magnetic monopole energy-- packets of .5MeV monopoles of charge energy. And the energy of rubbing becomes monopoles. These are those closed Lines of Force of a magnet, and the moment we touch something these stored up monopoles, flow from our body to that of the touched object.

How is that a proof the electron = muon?

Simple, in that the carpet, or plastic rod (-1) with wool or glass rod (+1) with silk, are materials that are electrically neutral substances, for the rubbing action was transformed not into free electrons, but was formed into monopoles. These substances remain electrically neutral, and the only change is that the rub created magnetic monopoles-- some + charged monopoles, some - charged monopoles, and these monopoles are superficial to the atoms where they formed.

Static Electricity is merely stored monopoles. Monopoles are conservation of energy, for the rubbing had to be transformed into some energy packets and that is-- monopoles of charge energy.

In the experiment of where we pick up bits of paper from either the glass rod or the plastic rod due to static electricity. What is happening here, is that the rod is not involved with the Real Electrons of atoms, but is involved with the superficial surface charged particle that is the magnetic monopole.

Now the electroscope is explained much much easier with magnetic monopoles rather than the silly electrons on one leaf pushing away the electrons on the second leaf.

For consider instead a closed loop line of force between the two leafs

/\

O

Where the leafs start out as ||

Then comes the charged rod of monopoles sending down a monopole closed loop O that pushes apart the two leafs.

Now i have two gold leafs and if true should leave the push apart looking more like this () rather than this /\. And that is what i have ()

by Archimedes Plutonium

------------------

-------------------

Don't forget to include a chapter on Failure. Its truth table is FFFF.

Stalking failure

Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass

of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.

Now, unlike Moroney, I do not believe for a moment that Harvard math professors cannot properly do a percentage, I don't believe that for a minute.Stalking failure

Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass

of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.

Moroney says he weighed the electron in High School, and then got a engineering degree, but how is that possible when he cannot even do math percentage correctly. Either Moroney is a liar or the world is nothing but fools.

Michael Moroney is not only a failure of math, --must have have been burnt out at school-- but also an insane crank on sci.math for 23 years now. I have often asked Google to please engineer a delete key so original authors of a thread can develop their own thread without these insane stalking poopers pooping up (Moroney a 23 year stalker). Let original authors delete any post in their thread which is unfit. Let insane stalkers make their own threads so they can crap all they wish without interrupting those doing serious science.

MAKE sci.math a Level Playing field, and stop tilting sci.math in favor of moron stalkers.

Drs. John Bush, Herman Chernoff of MIT are you as stupid as Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = monopole

MIT math dept.

Artin, Michael

Emeritus Professor of Mathematics

Algebraic Geometry, Non-Commutative Algebra

Bazant, Martin

Professor of Chemical Engineering and Applied Mathematics

Applied Mathematics, Electrokinetics, Microfluidics and Electrochemistry

Berger, Bonnie

Simons Professor of Mathematics

Theoretical Computer Science, Computational Biological Modeling

Bezrukavnikov, Roman

Professor of Mathematics

Representation Theory, Algebraic Geometry

Borodin, Alexei

Professor of Mathematics

Integrable Probability

Bush, John

Associate Department Head

Professor of Applied Mathematics

Academic Officer

Fluid Dynamics

Chernoff, Herman

Emeritus Professor of Applied Mathematics

Statistics, Probability

Cohn, Henry

Adjunct Professor

Discrete Mathematics

Colding, Tobias Holck

Cecil and Ida Green Distinguished Professor of Mathematics

Pure Mathematics Committee Chair

Differential Geometry, Partial Differential Equations

*On Leave Fall and Spring semesters*

Demanet, Laurent

Associate Professor of Applied Mathematics

Applied analysis, Scientific Computing

Dudley, Richard

Emeritus Professor of Mathematics

Probability, Statistics

Dunkel, Jörn

Assistant Professor of Applied Mathematics

Physical Applied Mathematics

Edelman, Alan

Professor of Applied Mathematics

Parallel Computing, Numerical Linear Algebra, Random Matrices

Etingof, Pavel

Professor of Mathematics

Representation Theory, Quantum Groups, Noncommutative Algebra

Freedman, Daniel

Emeritus Professor of Applied Mathematics

Theoretical Physics, Supergravity, Supersymmetry

Goemans, Michel

Interim Department Head

Professor of Mathematics

Theoretical Computer Science, Combinatorial Optimization

Gorin, Vadim

Assistant Professor of Mathematics

Probability, Representation Theory

Greenspan, Harvey

Emeritus Professor of Applied Mathematics

Fluid Mechanics

Guillemin, Victor

Professor of Mathematics

Differential Geometry

Guth, Larry

Professor of Mathematics

Metric geometry, harmonic analysis, extremal combinatorics

Helgason, Sigurdur

Emeritus Professor of Mathematics

Geometric Analysis

Hosoi, Anette

Professor of Mechanical Engineering

MacVicar Faculty Fellow

Fluid Dynamics, Numerical Analysis

Jerison, David

Professor of Mathematics

Partial Differential Equations, Fourier Analysis

Johnson, Steven

Professor of Applied Mathematics

Waves, PDEs, Scientific Computing

Kac, Victor

Professor of Mathematics

Algebra, Mathematical Physics

Mark Hyman, Jr. Career Development Associate Professor of Applied Mathematics

Theoretical Computer Science

Kleiman, Steven

Emeritus Professor of Mathematics

Algebraic Geometry, Commutative Algebra

Kleitman, Daniel

Emeritus Professor of Applied Mathematics

Combinatorics, Operations Research

Lawrie, Andrew

Assistant Professor of Mathematics

Analysis, Geometric PDEs

Leighton, Tom

Professor of Applied Mathematics

Theoretical Computer Science, Combinatorics

Lusztig, George

Abdun-Nur Professor of Mathematics

Group Representations, Algebraic Groups

Mattuck, Arthur

Emeritus Professor of Mathematics

Algebraic Geometry

Maulik, Davesh

Professor of Mathematics

Algebraic Geometry

Melrose, Richard

Professor of Mathematics

Partial Differential Equations, Differential Geometry

Miller, Haynes

Professor of Mathematics

Algebraic Topology

Minicozzi, William

Singer Professor of Mathematics

Geometric Analysis, PDEs

Moitra, Ankur

Rockwell International Career Development Associate Professor of Mathematics

Theoretical Computer Science, Machine Learning

Mossel, Elchanan

Professor of Mathematics

Probability, Algorithms and Inference

Mrowka, Tomasz

Professor of Mathematics

Gauge Theory, Differential Geometry

On Leave Fall and Spring semesters

Munkres, James

Emeritus Professor of Mathematics

Differential Topology

Neguț, Andrei

Assistant Professor of Mathematics

Algebraic Geometry, Representation Theory

On Leave Spring semester

Pixton, Aaron

Class of 1957 Career Development Assistant Professor

Algebraic Geometry

On Leave Spring semester

Poonen, Bjorn

Claude Shannon Professor of Mathematics

Algebraic Geometry, Number Theory

Postnikov, Alexander

Professor of Applied Mathematics

Algebraic Combinatorics

Rigollet, Philippe

Associate Professor of Mathematics

Statistics, Machine Learning

Rosales, Rodolfo

Professor of Applied Mathematics

Nonlinear Waves, Fluid Mechanics, Material Sciences, Numerical pde

Saccà, Giulia

Assistant Professor of Mathematics

Sacks, Gerald

Emeritus Professor of Mathematical Logic

Mathematical Logic, Recursion Theory, Computational Set Theory

Seidel, Paul

Levinson Professor of Mathematics

Mirror Symmetry

On Leave Fall and Spring semesters

Sheffield, Scott

Leighton Family Professor of Mathematics

Probability and Mathematical Physics

Shor, Peter

Morss Professor of Applied Mathematics

Applied Mathematics Committee Chair

Quantum Computation, Quantum Information

Singer, Isadore

Emeritus Institute Professor

Differential Geometry, Partial Differential Equations, Mathematical Physics

Sipser, Michael

Dean of School of Science

Donner Professor of Mathematics

MacVicar Faculty Fellow

Algorithms, Complexity Theory

Speck, Jared

Cecil and Ida B. Green Career Development Associate Professor of Mathematics

Analysis related to Mathematical Physics, General Relativity, PDEs

Staffilani, Gigliola

Abby Rockefeller Mauze Professor of Mathematics

Analysis: Dispersive Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations

On Leave Fall and Spring semesters

Stanley, Richard

Professor of Mathematics

Algebraic Combinatorics

Stark, Harold

Emeritus Professor of Mathematics

Number Theory

Strang, Gilbert

MathWorks Professor of Mathematics

Stroock, Daniel

Emeritus Professor of Mathematics

Probability, Stochastic Analysis

Tabuada, Goncalo

Associate Professor of Mathematics

Algebraic Topology, Noncommutative Algebraic Geometry

Toomre, Alar

Emeritus Professor of Applied Mathematics

Astrophysics, Stellar Dynamics, Fluid Mechanics

Vogan, David

Norbert Wiener Professor of Mathematics

Group Representations, Lie Theory

/\-------/\

\::O:::O::/

(::_ ^ _::)

\_`-----'_/

You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in MIT?

And, even though you-- professors of math, want to remain stupid in Calculus and Physics, your students deserve better.