========================================================== Title 'HYPERWAVE ESTATES' or ELEMENTARY PARTICLE MASS HYPERWAVES ========================================================== THIS VERSION RELEASED BY GREYDON MOORE AS AN E-MAIL OF 16516 LINES TOTAL AND 557,313 K IN SIZE. (C) 1995. RELEASED JANUARY 21 1995. APPENDED JANUARY 26 1995. INTERNET ADDRESS greydon@look.com ---------------- ------------------ __________________________________________ PAPER 1 BEGIN DECEMBER 16/94 ------------------------------------------ PART 1 ABSTRACT Intro ............... Self evident Accuracies 99.999 to 99.99999 % Oddballs Higgs boson ? Top quark mass candidate ? Redundancy Particle charges Particle vrs momentum Particle spin states PROTON wavelength The word 'isospin' The illusive stable ETA Candidate for the illusive 'higgs' boson PART 2 RANGE OF GROUPING MODEL PART 3 CRITICAL CRITERIA Plank's Constant Converter Particle prediction PART 4 SOLAR PHYSICAL CONSTANTS | Interlude PART 5 DISCUSSION and MAIN INTRODUCTION | Handshakes | Reasons for Believing in wide width resonances How about those RHO's Saturn = Pion PART 6 HISTORY PART 7 CONVENTIONS PART 8 RELEVANT SIDECARS Amplitudes by the Fine Structure Constant The PROTON is just sitting there Behold the bold ELECTRON PART 9 THE EARTH/MOON METAPHOR FOR SUBATOMIC PHENOMENA Earth and Venus XIONS Predicting a XION mass These RHO's have resonance More Pi in the sky Yin Yang Amplitudes The super highway of PARTICLES A mass for the NEUTRINO Cooking the books The Cooked Books N^ Version .... These particles have persuasion Virtual Reality Its UP to the UPSILONS Poof! the CONNECTORS ---------------------- The J/PSI interlinks Summary statements PART 10 SYMMETRY FACTORS Venus Rising Su(3) Multiplex groupings Su(3) Octuplet set Su(3) Decuplet set Regards the OMEGA mass Proton (plus.minus) Ping.Pongs A ping.pong statement Decay modes seen at once The stable particles of status **** Toot! Toot ! The ETA is missing Kaon circle multiplex Kaon Geometry Image The Classical Electron Radius KAON Bubbles revisited CIRCLE Geometry NEUTRON Circle Geometry ETA Circle Geometry PART 10-A BANG BUBBLES Power bubbles for stable SIGMAs Power bubble 1 1/2+ SIGMA + Power bubble 2 1/2+ SIGMA o Power bubble 3 1/2+ SIGMA - Spoke too S O O N ! The MUON bang bubble The N^ bang bubble The E bang bubble PART 11 DESCRIPTIONS - The KAON box of fluctuating wavelengths and KAON Hyperwave sets - Fractured wavelengths - Hyperwaves - MARS playing tunes with the Proton Mars and Mercury Mars and Venus Mars and Earth Mars itself Mars and Jupiter - The JUPITER balloons for IONS - PIONS in the sky at SATURN - JUPITER bang patterns JUPITER orbital HEXAGRAM --------------------------- JUPITER hyperwave estates Full picture - The MUON and NEUTRON Sing the same song French horn N^ version PART 12 FACTORS OF THE ELECTRON PART 13 CRITICAL ACCURACY PART 14 SYMMETRY RATIO GROUPS Integer ratios BALLOON mass states Here comes the MUON BALLOONS vrs the RYDBERG ratios Speculations PART 15 KEYBOARD PART 16 CANDIDATE FOR THE ILLUSIVE 'HIGGS' BOSON PART 17 MOVE THE OUTER PLANETS OVER TO THE ELECTRON PART 18 GRAVITATIONAL CONSTANT SPECULATION PART 19 BOOMS FROM THE ROOMS OF JUPITER PART 20 THE THEORY OF FLUTTERS PART 21 INTRINSIC SYMBOLIC LOGIC PART 22 RIFF RAFF PART 23 ERRATA PART 24 THE MARRIAGE corollary | An Electron mass energy of .51099906 5 has been used throughout the following. The reason is intuitional. Things seems to co-ordinate in a slightly better way with one more digit added to the Electron's mass, so . 00000005 was used (half way between 0 and 9) for the added digit. PART 1 ------------------------------------------------------- ABSTRACT and INTRO ------------------------------------------------------------ ABSTRACT -------- Three mechanical operators yield dozens of elementary particle mass energies, including all of the stable baryons, the Decuplet baryons, and the stable Muon, Pion, and Kaons. Other mass energies also are bound within the mechanical picture, including the mass energy difference between the Proton and Neutron. The mechanical operators turn a different ego to the picture of symmetry involving the particles. In here, nucleon inner higher energy resonances are the playing field, in which lineal summed factors of particle wavelengths (Compton), add, and subtract, and combine, in patterns to compose resulting mass energies of particles. The mass energies calculated in this way are accurate to 4 to 7 digits to the known experimental 'FITS' for each of the particles involved. In all, dozens of particles are grouped into several major patterns, which includes mass splittings between different CHARGE states for many of the particle wavelengths so factored. In this scene, the particle wavelengths (Compton) are the predictable parameters, and mass energies the result. This is in complete converse to atomic physics in which Rydberg prime number ratios (whole integers) for the energy states predict electron properties for electrons in 'shell' orbits around a nucleus, and the photon wavelengths for the energy levels result non lineally. On the other hand, in the elementary particle scene per se, the wavelengths (Compton) are operators which control the picture's grouping patterns. It is a much larger scene than just the octuplet and decuplet of Su(4) symmetries, in that the basic states of both Su(3) groups are included, as are also certain Leptons, and certain Mesons, plus many Baryons not included in the scope of the original Su(3). Both Su(3) groups are housed in the larger Su(4) array, which of itself is not cited elsewhere in the datas of this disclosure. Unlike the original Bohr model of the atom, which modelled electron 'orbits' as similar to planetary orbits but was soon learned to be a non-valid representation (not the same as the actual solar system nor the electron's behavior), the razzle dazzle of the elementary particle scheme involves actual existing planetary orbits used as control models for wavelength (Compton) structures that directly yield particle mass energies in matching agreements to known charge and mass energy states for the particles involved. In fact, in the cases of stable baryons, the accuracy is uncanny, suggestion that a flowing real time dynamic recurrance of sub-atomic interactions is sitting out in space in the Solar System. The Fine Structure Constant is an intrinsic ratio between many of the parts of the grouped particles. Whole integer and whole ratio multiples of the Fine Structure Constant seem to occur but these are Whole integer ratios of the Electron, in which 1/3 and 1/2 the mass energy of the Electron are basic entity constituents which are amplified by multiples of the Fine Structure Constant. There is strong indication that a 1/3 fractional integer unit of electron mass in fact can carry a full unit of electronic charge. Where 2/3 E is seen, this may be a unit of momentum (no charge), equivalent to a 1/3 E unit of mass, and carried along with 1/3 E unit of mass plus 1 full unit of charge. (Speculation). Along the way, in essence, the wavelengths of certain high energy particles can sum as the equivalent of two wavelengths of the Proton. Or, otherwise, the wavelengths of two Protons can be found as a factor within the wavelengths of other particles. In this case, the factors are conceiled somewhat like positive and negative factors of a square root, where any whole number can be a factor of both, positive, and negative, square roots, the root of the negative square not known by taking a square root of the positive number, the root has to be known in advance, when negative. In a similar sense, wavelengths which sum to equal other wavelengths are not discernable in reverse. The task is the find such sums by looking everywhere to find them as they gradually turn up, one by one. Many such 'summed' wavelengths have been located, and are reported below, throughout this disclosure. ----------------------------------------- INTRO ----------------------------------------- SELF EVIDENT Most all of the enclosed datas are in self evident symmetry sets, or in self evident disclosures of power amplifications relating to whole integer ratio multiples of the ELECTRON, and powers of the Fine Structure Constant. The symmetries arrise from a lineal sum approach to calculating the exact masses of elementary particles. The (Neutron-Proton) mass difference is intrinsic throughout the calculations, as a self contained mass unit, and also as a partial mass unit which without the Electron works in lineal sum array with multiples of 1/3 units of the Electron mass. In effect, the Compton wavelengths of particles are sub factored into units which interlink in lineal sum ways to becomes Compton wavelengths of other particles. Such sub unitizing is deemed 'fracturing', or 'fractured' wavelengths, in this disclosure Models for seeing images as to how to control the lineal summing of the wavelength parts is readily at hand, in the existence of the Solar system, specifically in the orbits of the 6 innermost planets, and importantly the orbit of the Moon of Earth. The images, self evident in the extreme, embody symmetrical contructions, and groups of constructions also symmetrical, such that a vastly expanded picture of what is going on in the realms of fundamental physics and elementary particles is apparent without question. Most at the core of the picture, is the calculation of MASSES of particles to the nth degree of accuracy, matching the FITS gained from the best of experimental and particle accelarator observations. ACCURACIES 99.999 to 99.99999 % ---------- In concidering just the 'Self Evident' disclosures, what is shown are MASSES (mass energies) and/or momentum equivalents, calculated to 12 significant digits in the form of calculations and presented intact in the detailed methods used for presenting those facts. These high digit calculations correspond to known masses of elementary particles to an unheard of accuracy of typically 99.999 % in a field in which NO particle masses can be calculated at all by direct physical methods except for the mass of the ELECTRON. There are some correspondences shown in the EARTH MOON METAPHOR section which have the unheard of accuracy of 99.9999 % involving mass related calculations. A particular accuracy involving EARTH orbit as a (wave/orbit) factor, goes right to conclusion at 99.99999 % ODDBALLS Here and there in the disclosures, however, are included a few isolated statements which do not occur directly from means that are instantly self evident, either as a symmetry inclusion or a power amplified state. These are included just in the case that there may be a MECHANICAL offering in the background of their derived occurrence that is not seen by me, but may be useful to another investigator. On the other hand these oddballs may have no actual meaning, in which case, ignore them. HIGGS BOSON ? The illusive HIGGS boson is suggested throughout these disclosures, but no attempt is made herein to pin point any single term as HIGGS since very little has reached the public domain literatures as to exactly WHAT a HIGGS boson is. At the moment it seems nothing more than a physicist's holy grail. From the point of view of an outsider in the public domain, looking in to hard cord physics from long distance outside, most of the embodied nuckle crunchers cited in the Particle Data Review Tables for physicists as crunchy sandwich matter, in details for each and every known and suspected entity, is not digestible as a quick meal nor even snacks of a lifetime. And so a HIGGS BOSON candidate is not being pointed to herein. REDUNDANCY Oh yes! Here and there throughout, a given derivation will be shown more than once, in fact some several times. The reason for such madness is not loss of control, but the fact that each time shown, pictures the given entity in a difference model or difference configuration even though it will be the same entity just shown in different colors and a different light. PARTICLE CHARGES There is no attempt in these disclosures, to tackle anything like determining if a given MASS or mass energy equivalent, is that of a pure particle, or is a unit of associated momentum mass energy only or orbital momentum factor, without particle properties. Also, no attempt has been made to rigorously balance particle Charges, or other particle Chromodynamic quantum properties, other than to demonstrate with great clarity the existence of particle CHARGED and particle NEUTRAL states directly related to (wave/mass) derivations. As to how these seeming charges exactitudes have turned up is not addressed. Both POSTIVE and NEGATIVE charges plus NEUTRALS, are pointed out in accuracies that flash like Neon signs. PARTICLE VRS MOMENTUM As for fundamental operators seen in the models there is an intuitive suspicion that planet orbits used as models for the lineal sum factor of wave (Compton) particle components are somehow related to momentum, so also perhaps quarks and + - local orbiting entities such as the Moon, may be Quarks revealed in Images. PARTICLE SPIN STATES There are grounds for this suggestion re: QUARKS etc. In BANG IMAGE 2, under JUPITER BANG PATTERNS of PART 11, is a planet wave/orbit depiction in which Venus shown in 'winter' position on the far side of the SUN, is associated with the particle charge states of the family of 3/2- XIONS (1823) MeV. In the EARTH MOON metaphor of PART 9, from which XION counterparts to Earth and Venus orbits are detailed, the 3/2- XION state is an unexplained mystery. For instance, why is it not a 5/2+ XION for the orbital interactions of VENUS. Well, the answer to that is that, it is NOT. However, with VENUS on the far side of the SUN in a ' winter' position with respect to EARTH plus 1/2 (Earth + Venus) orbits, there is self evident a mechanical apparatus opportuning a PICTURE for the 3/2- factor, and also for the fact that there are Unstable and Stable particles involved in the EARTH MOON metaphor. The mechanical scene in BANG IMAGE 2 is offered as a powerful CLUE in discerning + and - partical JP states. PROTON WAVELENGTH No attempt has been made to use the PROTON Compton wavelength as a factoring means in deriving mass states of particles. But the use of the PROTON Compton wavelength should be possible in re-addressing some (or all) of the derivations in a different, albiet more complex, way. The simple elegance of an exact SOLAR MODEL has been maintained in order to help systematically organize and present all of the enclosed datas and derivations. In this 'exact SOLAR MODEL' approach, lineal sum factors for planet orbits can result in MeV and mass entities whose datas drift slightly from perfect exactitudes, due to the nature of reciprocals, in which lineal sum factors reciprocated are not also lineal summed on their own. Nevertheless some of the reciprocated lineal summed factors also appear in lineal sum arrangements. For instance orbits lineally summed, when reciprocated, in many instances link up as mass sequences which embody lineally summed whole and integer units of particle masses and fractured masses. In particular, the (Neutron-Proton) mass difference symbolized throughout as N^ ties together many of the main states factored. In truth, under the topic VENUS RISING, in PART 10, the N^ factor appears locked in an embrace with the planet Venus so self evident, this appears to be the result of a fundamental oscillation which exists self systained without question. What the actual oscillation might be is your guess. TASK It is anyone's task to put this information together into a valid dymanic pattern suitable for Chromodynamic Physics. A myriad of factored datas point to claims of everything from decay modes, to anti-particle mass generations. But as you will see, this disclosure has artfully stayed away from the more arcane side of that fundamental physics. Instead just the facts themselves, from derivations and strings, are put on the table and anyone who wants to dabble time to look at proper fittings into Chromo Dynamic rigors is welcome to be enjoyed. Think of how long it took to hammer the levels and spin states and orbital momentums of Quantum dynamic into a workable scheme 6 and 7 decades ago. ----------------- The word 'ISOSPIN' ----------------- It is not known by this author if the word ISOSPIN as used in this disclosure is formally correct. ISOSPIN is used to specify a charge arrangement where no formal physics dictionary term seems to actually apply. Specifically a problem is that o charge is not an actual charge state, but an absence of charge. Furthermore where a mid state mass (between two charge states) is derived, there is no single word to define that other than the category 'MIXED CHARGES', as used in the PARTICLE REVIEW DATAS, circ. '94. And so, the word ISOSPIN (from original SU(3) symmetry summaries circ. 1970 has been adopted as a buzz word (or catch-all) to denote something about a charge, or also an in-between state with no DATAS nor charges, to identify something of special note about a particle partner in wave/mass harmonic oscillations. And that explains the use of the word ISOSPIN in this disclosure. ----------------------------------------- THE ILLUSIVE STABLE ETA ----------------------------------------- In (wave/orbit/mass) harmonics, the stable ETA mass (547.45) MeV FIT has not been found. A lot of work was spent looking for a canditate. Nothing has been found. In all possible instances a derived resulting MASS was either just too big, or too small, landing on either side of the ETA mass, but not right on it. These are MAJOR misses. There seems to be nothing in Solar model harmonics that comes close. The closest candidate is a mass of roughly 555 MeV from two derivations. And nothing else has been seen. All other (wave/orbit) harmonics seem to fall outside the picture. See below under TOOT! TOOT! The ETA is missing! in PART 11 for what schetchy details can be shown for the stable ETA particle. Also find under TOOT! TOOT! an ETA that turned up totally unexpectedly when exploring MARS + PLANET interactions on December 31, 94. At that moment ETAs turned up in abundance through the wide arms of JUPITER. So ETAs exist in the interdimensional scheme of things too. Forget the opening sentence above, it is wrong. It was originally written suggesting something obtruse about ETA's, since none had been found over the years until suddenly BINGO ! plain as day reflecting a claim that all wave harmonics for particle masses are completely hidden away unseen, unknown, until hit on directly. ----------------------------------------- CANDIDATE FOR THE ILLUSIVE 'HIGGS' BOSON ----------------------------------------- In the IMAGES, a + and - factor alluding to the mean orbit of the Earth's MOON has been used throughout, in producing exact changes in states of Charge, and whole integer 1/3, 2/3, and 3/3 units of the Electron mass, and single units of + - N^. If the Moon + - feature has a (wave/orbit) equivalent mass its wave (Compton) will be in the order of 3.84401 x 10 to -17 cm and its equivalent mass energy will be in the range of [513,336] MeV more than 500 times the mass of the PROTON, or roughly about 6 times the mass energies of the W and Z Weak Vector Bosons. At that mass there will be major + - fluctuations due to variable drifts when factoring particle masses in eccentric sets with orbit/wave datas stamped in iron (as fixed constants). ======================== TOP QUARK MASS CANDIDATE ======================== The alledged 'Higgs' boson might also be a candidate for the mass of a TOP Quark. For that matter, there are bangs that are even heavier (about 5 times more so) that might be the super heavy cowboys top quark theorists expect. These can best be seen exampled under such topics as 'Jupiter Hyperwave' Estates, in Part 11. ================ OTHER CANDIDATES ================ There are other unnamed exact entities throughout this disclosure, however, none in the ultra small range of 3.84401 x 10 to -17 cm. Any of these might be concidered HIGGS candidates. The INTRO has made a lot of promises. Lets see how well they have been fullfilled. - END OF INTRO - PART 2 ------------------------------------------------------- RANGE OF GROUPING MODEL ------------------------------------------------------------ The following elementary particle masses, and fundamental constants, are linked into a common understanding via predicable understructures. STABLE | UNSTABLE ------ | -------- Electron (lepton) | Rho (meson) (charges) Muon (lepton) | 3/2+ Delta (baryon) Su3 Pion (charged) (meson) | 3/2+ Sigma (baryon) Su3 Pion (neutral) (meson) | 3/2+ Xion (baryon) (charges) Su3 Kaon (charged) (meson) | 3/2- Xion (baryon) (charges) Kaon (neutral) (meson) | ----------------- Eta (meson) | J/PSI (meson) (low) 1/2+ Proton (baryon) Su3 * | J/PSI (meson) (high) 1/2+ Neutron (baryon) Su3 | Upsilon (meson) (low) 1/2+ Lambda (baryon) Su3 | Upsilon (meson) (high) 1/2+ Sigma (baryon) Su3 | B+- Bo (meson) 1/2+ Xion (charges) (baryon) Su3 | ------------------------ | 3/2+ Omega (baryon) Su3 | | | * Su(3) are two symmetry groups, The charge states seen are the | known as the Octuplet, and the first level FITS, those listed | Decuplet, from the Su(4) set. as the main particle property. | | | OTHER Anti-particle charges and other | ----- more kinky variables are not | suggested, although there is | A suggested small mass no reason to assume they are | for the Electron Neutrino excluded. | The radius of the two biggest planets in the solar system, Jupiter and Saturn, is used to create locked in constants with 2 particles. PHYSICAL CONSTANTS ------------------ Planks Constant Planks converter = (MeV to Wave) and (Wave to MeV) Fine Structure Constant Speed of Light Neutron - Proton mass energy difference Electron Classical Radius Borh radius (orbit) of the Electron in an atom ABSTRACT CONSTANT ------------------ 1 x 10 to power -27 = Ratio of magnetude between length of a solar orbit, and equivalent particle wavelength (Compton). The following solar space lengths are linked into a common understanding with predicable understructures. DIRECT inDIRECT half waves ------ -------- Perhihelion VENUS Mean Aphelion Perhihelion 1/2 (Earth + Venus) EARTH Mean 1/2 (Earth - Venus) Aphelion 1/2 (Mars + Earth) MOON Mean 1/2 (Mars - Earth) 1/2 (Mars + Jupiter) Perhihelion MARS Mean 1/2 (Jupiter eccentricity) Aphelion JUPITER Mean Radius Eccentricity SATURN Mean radius (distance to Saturn cloudtops) PART 3 ------------------------------------------------------- CRITICAL CRITERIA ------------------------------------------------------------ ================ CRITICAL CRITERA General ================ PARTICLE MASS ENERGY CALCULATIONS --------------------------------- Particle MeV values calculated by lineal sum factors of wavelength equivalents, are accurate typically to 4 to 7 significant digits. PLANETARY ORBITAL CALCULATIONS ------------------------------ Corresponding solar orbits likewise obtained as lineal sum factors from corresponding MeV values, are accurate typically to 4 to 6 significant digits. =================================================================== SUMMARY SCHEMATIC Lineal summed wavelengths TABLE 1 showing unitary expansion rates. =================================================================== + - increments are the Moon mean obit added and subtracted to all wave lineal sums involving Earth and Venus orbits. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ------- + unit sum (moon orbit) (1319) -------|--- original FROM EARTH ------- - unit sum (moon orbit) - - - - - - - - ------- + unit sum (moon orbit) (1531) -------|--- original FROM 1/2 ------- - unit sum (moon orbit) EARTH + VENUS - - - - - - - - ------- + unit sum (moon orbit) (1823) -------|--- original FROM VENUS ------- - unit sum (moon orbit) ------------------------------------------------------------ SUMMARY SCHEMATIC Converted to MeV's, showing non TABLE 2 lineal expansion rates due to the nature of RECIPROCALS. ------------------------------------------------------------ where (....) is the MeV mass of a known particle. (1315) --------- + (unit sum) (moon orbit) |+ difference |--> (1319) --------|---- from EARTH Mean orbit | 1/2+ Xion |- different difference | (1322) *-------- - (unit sum) (moon orbit) | | | | *|* expanded bridge | | *|* | | | (1526) *-------- + (unit sum) (moon orbit) | | | |+ big difference |-> (1531) ---------|---- from 1/2 (EARTH + VENUS) mean orbits |--> 3/2+ Xion |- bigger difference | | | | | (1535) *-------- - (unit sum) (moon orbit) | | | | *|* | | *|* greatly expanded bridge | | *|* | | | (1817) *-------- + (unit sum) (moon orbit) | | | |+ larger difference | | |-> (1823) ---------|---- from VENUS mean orbit 3/2- Xion | |- largest difference | | (1830) --------- - (unit sum) (moon orbit) ------------------------------------------------ ACCURACY CRITERIA All datas ------------------------------------------------ All Physical Contants used are listed on Page 1233 of the Physical Review D Particles and Fields, 1 August, 1994, Part 1, Volume 50, Third Series, Number 3, published by The American Physical Society through the American Institute of Physics, and Great Britain allies. Used throughout this disclosure is the Fine Structure Constant. Its value is the ratio: 137.0359895 . In all of the following, the Bar H value of Plank's Constant is used. And to simply the equations, a standardized version of the Compton wavelength MeV conversion to wavelength, and visa versa, has been used exclusively, called 'Converter', this is: PLANK'S CONSTANT CONVERTER -------------------------- Plank's Constant value of (6.5821220 x 10 -22MeV s) speed of light times (2.99792458 x 10 to power 10 cm s-1) equals (1.9732705332 MeV -11cm) times 1000 equals (1973.2705332 MeV -14cm) equals h^ = converter h^ as constantly symbolized, is used as follows: For routine convenience, a Planks Constant Converter factor for Compton wavelength / MeV is the term: 1973.2705332 used for all calculations and is symbolized as Planks Constant Coverter = h^ . All particle mass energy data is expressed in MeV. All particle Compton wavelength equivalents are given in terms of (1 x 10 to the power -14 cm). All solar orbits are given in terms of (1 x 10 to the power 13 cm). In which case, symbol h^ has three implicit Converter values: 1. 1973.2705332 MeV -14cm when just converting straight back and forth between a mass energy, and equivalent Compton wavelength. 2. 1973.2705332 x (1 x 10 to power -27) when starting with a solar orbit, and ending with conversion to an MeV. 3. 1973.2705332 x (1 x 10 to power 27) when starting with an MeV and ending with a solar orbit (wave) equivalent. The term, (1 x 10 to power + - 27), itself is thus used generically as a universal conversion in magnetude, for instance whenever starting with a particle wavelength (Compton) and ending with a SOLAR orbit equivalent. ------------------------------------------------ UNIVERSAL CONVERSION CONSTANT ------------------------------------------------ Power magnetudes subatomic-to-solar and visa versa are taken for granted and not specified, upon each occurrence or use of the 'converter' constant h^. All uses of the symble h^ have inplicit inclusion of magnetitude conversion, when solar orbits, or particle wavelengths, are being converted by Plank's Constant h^, when such magnetitude conversion is an explicit factor. The power conversion's magnetude is not shown as a term in the derivations of particle masses, and/or equivalent solar orbit modelling, for the sake of simplicity and clarity regards detailing the actual entities, terms, and factors involved. In all, however, the universal converter constant (1 x 10 to power + - 27) is expected to be implicitely taken for granted. The term h^ with digit value 1973.2705332 is the only item which needs to be programmed in the strings or equations used in runs through a calculator to make the datas of this disclosure. The difference between an orbit, and an MeV factor is so easily seen that just the digit value of h^ is enough for ALL of the equations and strings. The digits of h^ are the handiest form of shorthand imaginable. Powers of 10 (EXPONENTS) just get in the way. Free floating point decimal is the way to go in the fast lanes, letting h^ do the bookeeping all by itself in keeping track of magnetitudes. ------------------------------------------------ CONVERSION CONSTANT CONVENTION ------------------------------------------------ Two conventions in the use of h^ are used, and only the two. h^/(1823.57393767) means an MeV converted to wavelength. In this case, the mass of a 3/2- XION state is converted to wavelength. In this example, the wavelength can also be in fact the actual orbit of planet VENUS. h^/(Venus) means an ORBIT converted to MeV. In this case, the orbit of VENUS is stated, being converted to a particle equivalent MeV, in which a change in magnetude of (10 to -27) is taken for granted. h^/ 1/2 (Earth + Venus) - moon means 1/2 the sum of Earth and Venus orbits, to which is then subtracted the orbit of the Earth's moon, (the wave then converted to MeV). h^/ 1/2 (Jup eccentricity) - moon h^/ 1/2 (Jup eccentricity - moon) two fundamentally different characteristics are illustrated here in which the moon orbit is added to an entity, before the 1/2 value is converted. This seeming small change can have major consequence in resulting factors corresponding to particle MASS states. h^ conversions from orbit to particle MeV are the the most common direction of transformation in the uses of h^ in this disclosure. ----------------- COSMIC RECURRANCE Simplified 'Slide Rule' System ----------------- In this rational, a Cosmic recurrance, not reciprocal or mirror, but recurrance, is pictured. This is as if a mighty slide rule measuring inside sub-atomic wave/mass events is just slid along through the dimension of space growing larger as it slides, until suddenly, measures marked as the sub-atomic scope of the scale presto ! match up more or less PERFECTLY to solar measures in the COSMIC scale occurring as 1 SOLAR planet orbits 2 Distances between orbits 3 Distances comprising two orbits summed, in which such distances are most easily pictured as two different, orbits with the planets on either side of the SUN. 4 1/2 of a sum. (1/2 waves). 5 Any sum of two orbits, or difference between, plus and minus the Moon orbit, and plus and minus a planet radius. EXAMPLE 1 --------- An example of Compton wavelength (to) MeV conversion letting h^ do the easy work of keeping track of magnitudes. h^ 1973.2705332 / 3861.59323 wave = .510999065853 MeV and h^ 1973.2705332 / (.510999065853) MeV = 3861.593274 wave in which the Electron mass is converted to the Electron's Compton wavelength, and visa versa. In this case, the 'power magnetude ratio' (1 x 10 to power 27) is not needed and therefore not assumed. EXAMPLE 2 --------- Another example of Compton wavelength (to) MeV conversion letting h^ do the easy work of keeping track of magnitudes. h^ 1973.2705332 / 1.49597927 wave = 1319.04938308 MeV and h^ 1973.2705332 / (1319.04938308) MeV = 1.49597927 wave in which the 1/2+ Stable Xion isospin mass is converted to Compton wavelength, and visa versa. In this case, a wave measure (compton) of (1 x 10 to -14 cm) is assumed, knowing that a Compton wave is involved. In this case, the magnetitude power ratio has not been assumed, since only subatomic details are illustrated. In this case, the 'power magnetude ratio' (1 x 10 to power 27) is not needed and therefore not assumed. EXAMPLE 3 --------- Another example of Compton wavelength (to) MeV conversion using the simplified 'slide rule' system is as follows: h^ 1973.2705332 / 1.49597927 orbit = 1319.04938308 MeV and h^ 1973.2705332 / (1319.04938308) MeV = 1.49597927 orbit in which the 1/2+ Stable Xion isospin mass is gained from a solar orbit model, and visa versa. The solar model is the orbit of the EARTH. In this case, a wave measure (solar) of (1 x 10 to 13 cm) is assumed, knowing that a solar orbit (wave) is involved. In this case, since the solar orbit model is the mean orbit of the Earth, the magnetude power ratio (1 x 10 to power -27) has also been assumed, since Cosmic and subatomic details are both illustrated and linked in the same statement. ------------------------------------------------ ACCURACY CRITERIA All datas ------------------------------------------------ ACCURACY In each EXAMPLE (1 2 and 3) maximum accuracy is shown maintained throughout (all available digits to 12 digits plus a decimal point are used where applicable), using a solid state calculator device with intrinsic 13 digit free floating decimals accuracy (Monroe 326 Scientist, Circ. 1971), an old but very reliable device. An original mechanical motor driven Monroe Marchand calculator can do the same calculations in slow mode (all datas one by one, hand entered. The Monroe 326 has 12 registers to instantly store and recall any datas displayed in its single line view screen. 'Store' and a 'Recall', are the two keys used to handle store and recall, by instant toggle key stokes. No programming, or special logic is required by this device's inherent simplicity. Twelve memory registers are nowhere enough for the kind and size of project constituting this disclosure, so most calculations were hand done, by writing down digital results, then re-entering the results as needed by hand. Seven of the data registers held terms most frequently used for instantly 'cached' RECALLs toggled as needed. Using digits to maximum accuracy has the inherent advantage of instantly 'seen', instantly 'understood'. No guesswork about internal factors seen in the memory in the mind's eye but not seen outwardly at a glance. What you see, is what you've got, is the fundamental truth of it. Hence, digits that compare to 6 and 7 figures are instantly seen, and recognized as interesting. To many authorities, this hand-entry approach may seem very tedious as a way of life, but it has the advantage that the mind can stay sharply tuned to exact factors and statements under exploration, involving specific properties for both of particle physics and solar physics datas, without slugging through extra brainwork translating back and forth through an equipment's extra thought demands, for instance, in the programming and re-programming of a large computer to do calculations in an add hoc manner, or using a modern day sophisticated pocket calculator with any number of memory registers, and peculiar programming logics needed to access the 'learn' and 'replay' features for each step, or to access routines hard wired in add-on circuit modules. Or more to the point, in translating algebras trying to determine statistically if two different coded algebras can have the same digit results. You know the problem, process slows to a drawl keeping track of codes, rather than glancing at resulting digits in an instant of awareness, in an instant of illumination. Thus all digits are expressed to their full unless otherwise noted as short forms. Such maximum accuracy is used throughout for data details in this disclosure, since such displayed accuracy makes it very simple to cross check, and double check datas, without recourse to a photographic memory or the need to redo tasks again and again to re-affirm in detail prior results. What you see, is what you've got, is the motive for using such high digital details. This is said to re-assure thinkers who ignore digits and rely on codes, that the answers all finally lay in the digits anyway, so why bother with the codes. Datas to 3 and 4 digits are pointless. Datas to the standard 8 significant digits of most pocket calculators are too poor to be definative. Datas to 10 significant digits as with many better calculators, are ambiguous. 12 digit accurracy is a bottom line for making decisions. SYMBOLIC LOGIC In preparing this disclosure, it has been found extremely helpful to have at hand full digital details, voiding the necessity of having to redo calculations, and by sight to verify results in 1/10th of a second. In some parts of the disclosure, symbolic logic terms are used for statements rather than digital details, and in some cases, both symbolic logics, and digital details, are incorporated in statements to help make the statement's intent more intuitively self evident. In all instances, (pure symbolic logic) and (both digital details and symbolic logic), having a high digital detail record of certain terms for immediate eyeball reference is mandatory for speed in pursuing and verifying steps and calculations and further explorations for symmetries and patterns. The difficulty has always been, looking for an answer where the answer is unknown until it is found, in which in many or most instances, the question solved by the answer is also not known until there is an answer with which to formulate the question. In this kind of venue, information gradually unfolds as facts gradually accumulate. Eventually enough facts seem to accumulate to form a seeming pattern with predictable variants. When the variants are tried and the results are confirmed, as already predicted in thought, then and only then can a question be posed to which the answer already has been found. When the question appears it is already solved, in the same act. The philosphy thus has been to probe and poke around in a venue of great mystery, until its secrets gradually start to line up in place on the kitchen table. It is a 'home work' kind of project, with many notes initially recorded in 'short hand' until the notes can be fit into a more detailed view once their mysterious 'acts' are understood. The result of this 'home work' and 'short hand notes' form of data explorations and recording of results, has resulted in a main grunt of the datas being disclosed in this paper compiled in a brief three day period using the Monroe 326 Scientist solid state calculator (with an intrinsic accuracy to 13 significant digits), and this disclosure typed into a PCB 386 computer in another 6 weeks, with added datas being incorporated on an ongoing basis, swelling the original data burst from 1200 lines to over 15,000. This time span is not a very long haul in putting together a large picture from a number of previous sporadic insights gained over a twenty seven year period. In the three days, the 'symmetry ratio group' detailed in full under PART 14 was now seen for the first time, something like finding a big carot diamond hidden in the middle of a large broach or necklace with many diamonds, which has already been studied many times and many times again not from a jeweller's point of view but from an outsider looking for more understanding regards the necklace's inherent beauty. The 'symmetry ratio group' seen for the first time during day two of the three day work period, was seen for the first time, and found by co-incidental searches in factoring the datas. It has been briefly described as 'The Discovery' under PROTOTYPE in the SU(3) discussions of PART 10. It was an unexpected find, in other words. - R.S.L. author ------------------------------------------------ CRITICAL CRITERIA Particle Datas ------------------------------------------------ All Particle Datas come from the pages of the Physical Review D Particles and Fields, 1 August, 1994, Part 1, Volume 50, Third Series, Number 3, published by The American Physical Society through the American Institute of Physics, with Great Britain allies. MASSES All particle mass datas are given in terms of MeV without exception. (GeV's are not used). All solar datas are given in terms of cms. (Meters are not used). In which case a Binding Energy for the electon is given as .oooo136056981 MeV and orbit of the Moon as .oo384401 x 10 to 13 cm . Rather than repeating the term MASS ENERGY in all citations, the word MASS is just used for rapid reading of text. In all uses of the word MASS, 'mass energy' may be explicity implied, and also just energy in cases where momentum and not particle MeV may be involved. No momentums, or width energies, or other energies, are cited in this disclosure. All references to MASS, and to MASS ENERGY, refers exclusively to the mass energy of a particle, having a wave (Compton) equivalent, except where Binding Energies are specifically cited. However a given mass may not be replete with properties, it may be momentum in view. To stay away from conundrums, a cited mass can therefore stand for both a particle's mass energy equivalent or an equivalent momentum amount. Conundrums are presented as is, with other hands, other minds, expected to resolve the questions. FIT, VRS INDIVIDUAL EXPERIMENTS 'EXPMT' Where 'FIT' MeV's are shown to be reasonably in a picture (in an illustration of wave/mass symmetry or understructure), the 'FIT' MeV is shown in [brackets], the same as listed in the Particle Data Tables. Where a mass from an individual experiment is shown instead, then ( ) brackets are used for the MeV value. And sometimes also the term EXPMT for 'individual experiment'. So that 1/2+ XION [1314.9] MeV FIT is the best thought candidate for that particle's MeV by physicists. And 1/2+ XION (1315.2) MeV EXPMT is from a single experiment. And 1/2+ XION 1315.15769304 MeV might be shown as a mass derived from a (wave/orbit) factor, in this case from a sum of Earth orbit plus the Moon orbit, minus ELECTRON mass. So, no brackets. (......) MeV EXPMT are not cited very often in this disclosure. Most all particle datas cited are FITS. There are certain states however, which do not have FITS, and so (.....) single experiment values may be cited in lieu of AVERAGE. For instance in the symmetry group elsewhere descibed as 'The Earth Moon Metaphor for Subatomic Phenomena' two of three well defined wave/mass groups involving XION states have both 'FIT' values for a Negative and Neutral charge state for one of the particles. And just a single 'FIT' state for the other, but there are individual experiments showing mass differences for both Negative and Neutral occurrences for that other. And so, the states are described in both [ ] and ( ) brackets. For example, here is a segment taken from TABLE 4 in this disclosure, in which [ ] brackets clearly identify 'FIT' masses, and ( ) brackets clearly identify 'INDIVIDUAL EXPERIMENT' masses. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From TABLE 4 illustrating generic use of ( ) and [ ] brackets. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- status + | MOON Xion o 1315.66 869213 MeV [1315.2] **** EARTH ---|-- 1/2+ Xion 1319.04 938310 MeV - | MOON Xion - 1322.44 749261 MeV minus 1 electron = 1321.93 649355 MeV [1321.87] **** - - - - - - - - - - 1/2 + | MOON Xion o 1526.26 140694 MeV (1527) EARTH + VENUS ---|-- 3/1+ Xion 1530.81 284775 MeV [1530] **** - | MOON Xion - 1535.39 151532 MeV (1535.0) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- WAVES All particle wave (Compton) datas are given in terms of (1 x 10 to -14 cm), even though no system of units is actually cited. Instead, wave (Compton) typically denotes a Compton wavelength. The 'FITS' (most likely mass) for many particle masses have been identified or targeted in calculations. However many particle 'states' do not have 'FITS' corresponding to wave calculations, whereas individual experiments do. These individual experiment masses are thus quoted. For example, the 3/2+ XION particle of the Su(3) decuplet symmetry group is listed as a single 'FIT state of [1530] MeV, but experiment masses are listed for individual Negative charged, and Neutral occurrences. Since individual experimental occurrences actually match MeV masses calculated from wave (Compton) factors, the individual experimental MeV masses are quoted, and the single 'FIT' value is merely identified as being intrinsic, and is shown to be not the only data worth concidering in this disclosure. No rigorous attachment to any particular experiment or date of experiment has been adopted as a rule or law. The only 'RULE' is in looking to the 'lowest' deviations amongst experiments for closest approximation to digital correspondences otherwise calculated by waves (Compton). PARTICLE PREDICTION ------------------- Only one particle state, a higher mass charged XION from the ?/?- (2250) status ** occurrence is being suggested as a target particle for experimental search. The mass suggested is close to or at the quantity 2264.7 MeV. The only criteria for suggesting this specific mass state is that it can be shown linked to the well defined set of three XION isospin states identified through wave (Compton) lineal sum symmetry elsewhere in this disclosure as the 'Earth Moon Metaphor For Subatomic Phenomena'. The metaphor calls for three isospin/charge XION state masses occurring in a fourth XION group, and two exact mass agreements already exist for that particle's set of three masses expected by the metaphor. The two existing agreements are 2244.93227903 MeV assume a Neutral charge 2254.79298018 MeV assume an isospin predicted 2264.74068833 MeV assume a Negative charge in the ?/? XION (2250) STATUS ** particle which already has ?/? XION (2244) experiment (no assigned charge) ?/? XION (2250) estimate (no assigned charge) Thus the third mass occurrence [2264.7] MeV is suggested as also existing. See details under 'Predicting a XION Mass', in PART 9. ------------------------------------------------- CRITICAL CRITERIA Solar System Datas ------------------------------------------------- All planetary orbit data (including Moon orbits) has been assumed in terms of (10 to the power 13 cm) for the sake of universal consistency. It is assumed that the orbit of Venus is the most well measured, in spite of the AU (Astronomical Unit) standard based on Earth's orbit. In view of this assumption judgement calls are preferred to the Venus mean of orbit. In other words, discrete variations of the Earth orbit are shown resulting from lineally summed plus or minus factors, using the full value of Venus mean of orbit in calculations. ---------------------------------------------------- SOLAR SYSTEM UNIVERSE Text and Paintings by Don dixon DATA ARE FROM: Houghton Mifflin company Boston 1981. ---------------------------------------------------- PLANETARY QUANTITIES pages 220-235 ---------------------------------------------------- which used refined details from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory released to the author (Dixon) in 1981. ---------------------------------------------------- AND INCLUDE: AU = Astronomical Unit = (1.49597927 x 10 to 13 cms) = Earth's mean of orbit. Orbits (orbital Means, Perihelions, and Aphelions) are thus converted from the PLANETARY QUANTITIES tables, by multiplying all AU values by (1.49597927 x 10 to the 13 cms). PART 4 ------------------------------------------------------- SOLAR PHYSICAL CONSTANTS TABLE 3 ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------- Perhelion = .4600515121 x 10 to the 13 cms MERCURY orbit = .579092027 x 10 to the 13 cms Aphelion = .698169037 x 10 to the 13 cms --------------------------- Perhelion = 1.074745915 x 10 to the 13 cms VENUS orbit = 1.082089677 x 10 to the 13 cms Aphelion = 1.089433439 x 10 to the 13 cms --------------------------- Perhelion = 1.470963504 x 10 to the 13 cms EARTH orbit = 1.49597927 x 10 to the 13 cms Aphelion = 1.520995035 x 10 to the 13 cms Perhelion = .00356400 x 10 to the 13 cms MOON = .00384401 x 10 to the 13 cms Aphelion = .00406700 x 10 to the 13 cms --------------------------- Perhelion = 2.066565211 x 10 to the 13 cms MARS orbit = 2.279410149 x 10 to the 13 cms Aphelion = 2.492255088 x 10 to the 13 cms --------------------------- Perhelion = 7.406184963 x 10 to the 13 cms JUPITER orbit = 7.783285433 x 10 to the 13 cms Aphelion = 8.160385904 x 10 to the 13 cms eccentricity = .37710047 x 10 to the 13 cms radius = .000690840 x 10 to the 13 cms --------------------------- Perhelion = 13.47581264 x 10 to the 13 cms SATURN orbit = 14.269906899 x 10 to the 13 cms Aphelion = 15.064032535 x 10 to the 13 cms radius = .00060330 x 10 to the 13 cms radius distance to cloud tops --------------------------- Perhelion = 27.340068344 x 10 to the 13 cms URANUS orbit = 28.695724759 x 10 to the 13 cms Aphelion = 30.051381173 x 10 to the 13 cms --------------------------- Perhelion = 44.580032648 x 10 to the 13 cms NEPTUNE orbit = 44.965845701 x 10 to the 13 cms Aphelion = 45.351658744 x 10 to the 13 cms --------------------------- Perhelion = 44.237602993 x 10 to the 13 cms PLUTO orbit = 58.999926429 x 10 to the 13 cms Aphelion = 73.762249865 x 10 to the 13 cms --------------------------- PART 5 ------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSSION and MAIN INTRODUCTION ------------------------------------------------------------ The approach used for this disclosure is to take information out of the assumptive or theoretic range and present it in the form of Self Evident materials. Picture how easy new insights can be. For instance, make the Compton wavelength for the stable Xion particle from the Octuplet group, whose properties are 1/2+ Xion with two charge states, Neutral and Negative. In fact, make the wavelength for both states, the Negative 1322.3 MeV, and the Neutral 1315.7 MeV. Average the two wavelengths by adding the two and dividing by two, and make the wavelength for the average also. And also, subtract the wavelength for the Negative from the average, and subtract the Average from the Neutral. In order words, treat them with some simple lineal sum factoring. Bear with this, the Neutral state's FIT is 1314.9 MeV and this will be seen further on, in PART 9. You should have a small plus and minus wavelength increment in the neighborhood of (3.84 x 10 to the -17 cm), as a result of the simple lineal sum factoring upon the Compton wavelengths. Also, verify that the MeV value for the average of the two Compton wavelengths of the two charge states of the stable 1/2+ Xion is roughly 1319.04 MeV. Keep all your datas on a sheet of paper, you will need them. PHASE TWO of the new solutions: Go to the 3/2- unstable Xion of mass range 1823 MeV. Make its wavelength, and both add and subtract the sub-unit (3.84 x 10 to the -17 cm) to this wavelength and make Compton wavelengths for both new sums, and you will see resulting wavelengths for two more Xion states, the Negative at 1830 MeV, and the Neutral, at 1817 MeV. Now we are ready to actually hit our original goal. PROOF! Here it is. Add together the two averaged wavelengths, (for the 1319.04 MeV value, and 1823 MeV value), and divide by two. Then add and subtract the SAME sub-unit (3.84 times 10 to the -17 cm) to the new average, and make two new Compton wavelengths. These two new wavelengths you will find correspond accurately to two Xion states from the Decuplet Xion group, to wit, the 3/2+ Xion Neutral state of 1527 MeV, and the 3/1 Xion Negative state of 1535 MeV, with a mean state in between of 1530 MeV. And there you have it, three fundamental Xion resonances in which both charge states for each resonances are precisely calculated as mass energies, directly achieved by using only the Compton Wavelengths, changed by fractured lineal sum factors, through each of the six charge particles. But is THIS A L L T H E R E I S ? No way, says an intuitive whisper, subliminally. There is more, much more. The sound amplifying to a R O A R ! Look to the Solar system, in fact look right out your patio door into the night sky when the Moon is up and so is Venus. Let your imagination take a journey into the core of matter. Let your imagination take a journey into the reaching heart of outer space. And see in the mind's eye if the two can be merged into one. The fact is they can, and here is how ... Let the Earth's mean of orbit stand for a Compton wavelength. You do not have to do anything to achieve this, just merely reduce the size of the Earth's mean of orbit by a magnetude of (1 times 10 to the power 27), so that instead of being 1.4957 x 10 to the 13 cm, it is now 1.4957 x 10 to the -14 cm. Do the same for the Earth's mean of orbit PLUS the Moon's mean of orbit (equivalent to the Moon in FULL Moon position), and also minus the Moon's mean of orbit (equivalent to the Moon in NEW Moon position), and reduce both by the power ratio of (1 x 10 to the power 27), and claim both measures are now Compton Wavelengths. Then by the standard established conversion equation (plank's constant = 1973.2705332 MeV -14cm) convert both wavelengths to mass energy equivalents. The results will be 1315.7 MeV for the original (Earth + FULL Moon's orbit), and 1322 MeV for the (Earth - NEW Moon's orbit). You can see at once these these two values are right on target for the two stable Xion particle charge states of 1315.2 MeV plus an Electron mass (for the Neutral 1/2+ Xion), and 1322.2 for the Negative 1/2+ Xion. The Earth's mean of orbit itself converts to an MeV of 1319 MeV, just in case you wanted to know. (1315.2) is the best physics experiment value for this Xion. NOW we are starting into earnest regions of disclosure, here. Because the picture continues. To be exact, couple planets Earth and Venus into an interaction. Here is how. Add the Mean orbit of the Earth, to the Mean orbit of Venus, divide by two, and to the result, add and subtract the Moon's mean of orbit, and make equivalent Compton wavelengths exactly in the same way as described above for the Earth. You will see without hestitation that the results are intriguing indeed. The results are matched right on the mark by properties of the 3/2+ unstable Xion from the Decuplet group, to wit; 1526 MeV for the Neutral 3/2+ Xion from ((Earth + Venus orbits divided by 2) + the Full Moon's orbit)) and 1535 MeV for the Negative 3/2+ Xion from ((Earth + Venus orbits divided by 2) - the New Moon's orbit)). Notice that I in fact used the orbit of Venus to get this second set of Xion states. So what about Venus orbit itself. You have probably already guessed the outcome of THAT question, since we are on a roll, here. Yes, in fact, the Mean orbit of Venus itself, to which is added and subtracted the Moon's orbit, translates into the charge states of the third Xion family already specified above in the opening conjectures before Solar orbits were introduced. The Xion states obtained from the orbit of Venus itself are; 3/2- Neutral 1817 MeV, and 3/2- Negative 1830 MeV, with an inbetween state of (1823) MeV which is listed as that particle's precise FIT mass in the Particle Data Table. Notice that I did not have to fudge an inch to get these 3 sets of particles straight from solar orbit models. Right away there are astounding recurrances afoot. Firstly, adding and subtracting a given unit of a small piece of Compton wavelength to larger wavelengths produces disportionate results which are not lineal sum values when the wavelengths are converted to mass energy states, due to mathematical properties no more mysterious than the common numerological nature of reciprocals. In this case, however; three Xion families all cooking together on the same hotline; the disproportionate stretching of lineal summed Compton wavelengths, results in exact calculation of resulting MeV mass energy values, close to detail regarding charge/mass splits, whose differences one state to another, and one family to another, are definative and yet definately NOT lineal. Two principles are established in the one disclosure: 1. Lineal sum factoring of Compton Wavelengths, can yield exact mass energy states of resulting particle masses. 2. The solar system holds a blueprint for a mighty cosmically visible, easily seen with the naked eye, recurrance of an easy inter-particle fabrication, based on the lineal sum factoring of Compton Wavelengths. 1-a. The ability to describe new physics can get awkward in direct proportion to the new physics being disclosed, in a logarythmic expanding confusion imparted by the disposer's lack of quality physics termnology. 1-b. The solution is to go with the flow, do the best with termnology and expertise at hand. As long as another reader can follow the discloser's logic, physics is served. WE ARE NOT FINISHED Another major recurrance containing an intrinsic image involves Earth and Venus again. In this case it is the distance itself between the two planets (the space that separates them) which is involved. Here is how to see that picture. Subtract the mean orbit of Venus from the mean orbit of Earth. Divide this sum in half. Reduce the result by the power ratio of (1 x 10 to the power -27), and call this a Compton wavelength. It will be a Compton wavelength for a mass energy of 9535.25077882 MeV. How might we double check this occurrence (seek to find the occurrance from other means)? Try some play. For instance it has also been noted that the Electron mass times the Fine Structure Constant squared, is a mass result of 9595.98104359 MeV. Since this is a rare mass, in a particle mass region of rarified atmosphere with next to nothing there, look to the datas of the Review of Particle Properties tables, for an MeV for the mass energy range of 9535.25 MeV. It turns out there is none. Rarified air indeed. But wait a minute, there is an UPSILON meson, with a published mass state of 9460 MeV's. The difference between this, and the 9595.98104359 MeV calculated immediately above, is 135.98104 MeV, which has an approximation, in the form of the negative Pion mass of 134.9764 MeV, also a rarified air occurrence with nothing else around it. In fact, 135.98104 minus 2 Electron masses lands at 134.95904 MeV which is pretty ballpark to the mass of the known negative Pion, at 134.9764 MeV FIT. This is the kind of data piece which gets noted, to be looked over in more detail later. (Author's comment). Substituting the real Pion- mass, then the resulting mass approximates the Upsilon mass, to a near perfect exactness, to wit 9461.00464359 MeV, compared to the actual experimental mass currently published in 1994 for the S 1 U(9460) particle, of (9460.37) MeV. Things are starting to look better. In fact this almost looks like sculpting numbers from the Great Pyramid to fit a theory, until the numbers are examined in detail. Great co-incidences become apparent, great because certain numbers are so close to one another, in fact so close, that co-incidence can be ruled out. Remember, at this moment we are discussing rarified atmospheres. Rarified indeed. Here goes some sculpting: The mass difference between the charged Pion and neutral Pion is in a FIT range of 4.5936 MeV. And also, an invisible mass energy equivalent to the classical Electron radius is the Electron mass times the Fine Structure Constant, being 70.0252618 Mev; a mass energy not known to correspond to a particle or physical entity, but IS the energy equivalent for the Classical Electron Radius. Nevertheless, when it is added to the Upsilon mass (derived from the Electron plus neutral Pion masses), the result is a mass of 9531.02990545 Mev which differs from the afore shown mass of 9535.25077882 MeV (derived from the orbits of Earth and Venus) by 4.220873408 MeV. See how close this is to the Pion (charged-neutral) mass difference of 4.5913 MeV. When this scientific mass difference is instead added to the mass of 9531.02990545 MeV, the result is 9535.62350545 MeV. Intuition forces the hand to type and enter the calculations to convert this derived figure (9535.62350545) MeV backwards to an original derived term for 1/2 the orbital distance between Earth and Venus. Adding twice the resulting orbital WAVE piece to the orbit of Venus results in an orbit value of 1.4959 6309 x 10 to 13 cm. The Earth mean of orbit is 1.4959 7927 x 10 to 13 cm. Why; the difference is hardly any more or less than the radius of the Moon. This derived value deviates at the 6th significant digit from the published value of the Earth's mean of orbit. It is a calculation that is 99.99 89185 % accurate. Just for the heck of it, with the Moon radius added, (.oooo1738), the percentage of error vanishes, such that 1.4959 6309 x 10 to 13 cm. + .oooo1738 x 10 to 13 cm. = 1.4959 8047 x 10 to 13 cm. compared to 1.4959 7927 x 10 to 13 cm. EARTH ORBIT No 10% physics here, nor even 2%, this stuff is tough, with percentages of error of 1/100th of a percent and less, gained at once over HUGE ranges and leap frog giant spreads within elementary particle masses. The above Upsilon meson - Solar orbit - Pion particle - Electron intrinsic wave/mass interaction is summarized in an illustrative schematic elsewhere to be found under ITS UP TO THE UPSILONS, in PART 9. What, exactly, has just been done, here. That is hard to say in a few words. Mainly, terms factored from particle mass splits, and fundamental mass energies amplified by whole ratio powers of the Fine Structure Constant, have been individually shown associated in great detail to the mass of a fundamental Upsilon Meson, the (9460) FIT particle. But further, the same fundamental mass amplitude structure has been linked to a mechanical model based on lineal sum wave terms, in a model taken directly from the dynamic solar system. The WAVE terms are themselves whole sound and perfect if factored entirely in pure form, as lineal sum units of Compton wavelengths taken from two existing Xion particles; one (1319) MeV from the so-called Su(3) octplet symmetry group; and the second (1530) MeV from the so-called Su(3) decuplet symmetry group. See EXAMPLES in PART 10. It may be co-incidence that the solar mechanical modelling of the same pure 'Compton' wavelength lineal sum factoring is in fact identical in terms of results. It may even be that lineal sum factoring of particle waves (Compton) taking the waves from Xion states, is also a co-incidence. This could be true if this was the only WAVE/MASS particle manifestation ever shown. But that is not the case, as this disclosure is already beginning to demonstrate in abundance. Further to this, the region of the solar system from which the wave mechanical model is taken is intrinsically associated with a much larger major symmetry particle (mass * charge) grouping system, being shown in detail elsewhere under yuppi buzz words called 'The Earth Moon Metaphor For Subatomic Phenomena'. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- A REASON FOR BELIEVING IN core harmonics wave/energies ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The above line of reasoning, beginning at 'WE ARE NOT FINISHED!' is not the only line of reasoning to which the UPSILON meson can be shown to be openly involved in (wave/harmonic) interactions. In fact, both planets MARS, and JUPITER, also have (wave/mass) orbit states which tie in, as will be shown further below. Also, a larger overview ties in the (wave/mass) orbit states directly to both the high and low masses of the J/PSI (3097) particle. To show these tie-ins, now is the time to introduce an illustrating method, and a method of itemizing the illustrated material in small derivations called 'Handshakes'. ILLUSTRATION 0 -------------- h^/(orbit amplitude wave) = UPSILON harmonic 1/2 wave | Earth | Venus Sun .----*----.------------------------.--*--.------------------------ * A P | A P | | | | | | | 3/2+ Xions | |.............................................. |................................| |...............| Upsilon Let the following letters typically stand for the following: A = Aphelion of an orbit * = Mean of an orbit P = Perhelion of an orbit In Illustrations, all planets will be shown along an obital (wave) length, or solar base line, just as depicted immediately above in schematic fashion. The tendency to wish to identify each part, for instance the lengths .................................. |...............| will not be indulged everywhere, for the pure and simple reason that where such lengths appear in an Illustration, their appearance is self evident as to what they show. Also, easily depictable information can quickly become cluttered beyond redemption with the inclusion of just a few extra terms to identify that which is in fact already 'self evident'. So self evident information will not be identified by extra terms or symbology. For instance, in ILLUSTRATION 0, the lineal sum orbital distance between EARTH and VENUS, and 1/2 that sum, are self evident, and so are not noted with busy terms. Illustration 0 pictograms some basic nature of an UPSILON harmonic and allied UPSILON particle state as outlined above beginning with 'WE ARE NOT FINISHED' which can now be changed to 'WE ARE IN NO WAY FINISHED!' Let's start pictogramming over again, re-using Illustration 0, to start a sequence of displayed information, as follows: ILLUSTRATION 1 -------------- 1/2 wave ..... for UPSILON (9460) | Earth | Venus Sun .----*----.------------------------.--*--.------------------------ * A P | A P | | | | | | | .................................. |...............| harmonic = h^/(orbit lineal sum wave/mass) = 9535.25077882 MeV HARMONIC HANDSHAKE 5-1 ------------- 9535.25077882 MeV - negative Pion 134.9764 MeV FIT = 9461.00464359 MeV = 1 S UPSILON low mass (9460.37) AVERAGE + the Electron Radius mass equivalent 70.0252618 MeV = 9531.02990545 MeV + the (charged Pion - negative Pion) mass difference (4.5936) MeV FIT = 9535.62350545 MeV HARMONIC Compare above orbit wave harmonic 9535.25077882 MeV divided by particle mass harmonic 9535.62350545 MeV = 99.99 89185 % in agreement. 1 S UPSILON is the official name for this state in the Particle Data Review Tables of 1994. Elsewhere in this disclosure, the same state is identified as S 1 and the reason for the change is simple, it is easier to visually see the meaning of S 1 then it is seeing 1 S. That's all folks, no other reason. Interesting about this; the above HANDSHAKE 5-1 is not the only way the UPSILON low mass state (9460.37) is seen in lineal sum wave harmonics. There are two other harmonics which can be shown in a similar way, as follows: ILLUSTRATION 2 -------------- moon orbit 1/2 moon Jupiter | Mars | Earth Sun .-------*------.---.------------*---------------*-----,------------ * A P | | | | | 3. | |.............| 1. |..........| | | | |......| | | | 2. |.......| 4. |...................| Four lineal sum solar orbit waves are depicted in Illustration 2. These denote (eccentricity wave/mass) harmonic datas as follows: ILLUSTRATION 2-A linking to the J/PSI particle ---------------- moon 1/2 moon Jupiter | Mars | Earth Sun .-------*-------.--,------------*---------------*-----,------------ * A P | | | | | | 4. |.............| | | | | | = 1322.44749259 MeV | | | | | | | | | 3. |...................| | | | | = 1319.04938308 MeV | | | ......|.......| | | 2. |.......| = 5037.51022864 MeV | | 1. |..........| = 5179.94256805 MeV h^/(Jupiter mean - Jupiter perihelion) + Moon orbit = 5179.94256805 MeV h^/1/2 (Mars mean - Earth mean) = 5037.51022864 MeV h^/(Earth mean) 1/2+ Xion switch = 1319.04938308 MeV h^/(Earth mean - Moon orbit) = 1322.44749259 MeV - Electron 1/2+ Xion negative = 1321.93649353 MeV where: h^ Planks converter constant = 1.9732705332 MeV -11 cm also transforms by Cosmic conversion constant = (1 x 10 to - 27) where: Moon orbit is the Earth Moon's mean of orbit = .oo384401 x 10 to 13 cm and 'switch' is a (negative/neutral) mass midstate --------------------------------------------------------------- Here is what can be shown with the 4 (orbital/wave) mass harmonics shown above in ILLUSTRATIONS 1 and 1-A. --------------------------------------------------------------- The high (4416) and low (3097) MASS states of the J/PSI particle will be calculated to maximum accuracy involving amplitudes of the Electron mass raised by ratio integer factors of the Fine Structure Constant. Actually Electron ratio integer factors are at the heart, raised by powers of the Fine Structure Constant. --------------------------------------------------------------- HANDSHAKE 5-2 ------------- Electron x FSC squared = 9595.98104359 MeV AMPLITUDE - Jupiter (orbit/wave) HARMONIC 1. ... 5179.94256805 MeV = 4416.03847554 MeV = J/PSI high [4415] AVERAGE J/PSI [4415] high ... 4416.03847554 MeV - 1/2+ XION switch = 1319.04938308 MeV = 3096.98909245 MeV = J/PSI low [3096.88] AVERAGE NOTE Earth (orbit/wave) HARMONIC 4 of ILLUSTRATION 1-A is the 1/2+ XION switch which is also in the images of PART 9 called 'The Earth Moon Metaphor For Subatomic Phenomena'. COMPARE particle mass state 3096.88 MeV divided by orbit wave harmonic 3096.87822043 MeV = 99.9999425 % in agreement. HANDSHAKE 5-3 more details ------------- Electron mass = .51099906 MeV Electron mass x FSC squared = 9595.98104359 MeV AMPLITUDE - Electron mass x (2 FSC) ... 140.05052364 MeV = 9455.93051995 = UPSILON [9460) AMPLITUDE - 1/2 (Mars - Earth) (orbit/wave) HARMONIC 2. ... 5037.51022864 MeV = 4418.42029131 - Earth mean - Moon orbit ... 1322.44749259 MeV (orbit/wave) HARMONIC 3. = 3095.97279872 MeV + 2 Electron mass ... = 3096.99479684 MeV J/PSI [3096.88] low AVERAGE COMPARE particle mass state 3096.88 MeV divided by orbit wave harmonic 3096.99479684 MeV = 99.9962932 % in agreement. ! COMPARE orbit wave harmonic from HARMONICS 1 and 4 3096.98909245 MeV from HARMONICS 2 and 3 3096.99479684 MeV ! = 99.9998158 % in agreement. where ! marks where the digits deviate. NOTE ---- from HANDSHAKE 5-1 = 9461.00464359 MeV from HANDSHAKE 5-3 - 9455.93051995 MeV = 5.07412364 MeV - 1 Electron mass ... .51099906 MeV = 4.56312458 MeV which is the PION mass difference ... (4.5936) MeV FIT where: 140.05052364 MeV is termed a 'charged PION's amplitude in that 140.05052364 MeV - Electron mass = 139.53952458 which approximates PION+- ... (139.56995) MeV FIT HANDSHAKE 5-4 ------------- Interval 5179.94256805 MeV (from HARMONIC 1) Interval 5037.51022864 MeV (from HARMONIC 2) do not allude to the 'Bottom Mesons' of masses B+- 5278.7 MeV Bo 5278.9 MeV There are several entities which fall within a range of 5200 to 5500 MeV's between 4416 MeV to 9460 MeV, all being of the bottom (beauty) and bottom (strange) genre, but there seems none with masses that perfectly land on other masses derived by wavelength fracturing and mass factoring. The only other wave/orbit entity which falls anywhere within the range of 4416 MeV to 9460 MeV is in the eccentricity of JUPITER where (Jupiter mean - Jupiter perihelion) has a mass energy equivalent of 5232.7448192 MeV which may seem to connect the 'Bottom Meson' by an ELECTRON power amplitude, factored as 5232.7448192 MeV + 2/3 E x FSC = 46.683508337 MeV = 5279.42832753 MeV - E = Bo meson = 5278.91732847 MeV 5278.9 MeV FIT - 1/3 E = B+- meson = 5278.74699545 MeV 5278.7 MeV FIT SPECULATION A speculation seems possible, that a 1/3 unit of Electron mass may in fact carry a full unit of Electronic charge. That a fraction unit of Electron mass carrying a full unit of charge is indicated throughout this disclosure, but is not a headline feature. ------------------------------------------------------------------ A REASON FOR BELIEVING IN WIDE WIDTH RESONANCES (speculation) ------------------------------------------------------------------ What About Those RHO's ? Let's look at the RHO particle, and see if there is any reason to believe that it should have a wide width mass. What this means is, that instead of one fitted mass, it has a mass amplitude range that expands across at least (say) 21 MeV from (say) 754 MeV to 775 MeV. The thinking comes not from the published Particle data tables of August 1994, which shows no FIT but several AVERAGES which range from 769.9 to 770.8 MeV, but rather from wave factors, which are modelled most perfectly by the planet VENUS in the solar system. The solar model is intriquing and self evident enough that there is little room to doubt that RHO resonances have a width, manifesting through at least three principle wave amplitudes, at least in this model. In fact, once again let us evoke the crescents of Venus in the night sky, and this time wait until there are no crescents. This will be when Venus is on the far side of its orbit from us, on the other side of the Sun, in a 'winter' position relative to us in 'summer'. Behold there is a wavelength, that extends across the terran solar expanse, between Earth and that far distant Venus. In this view it shall be said that Earth is in the 'Summer' position, and Venus is in the 'Winter' position at the other end of the wave, with regard to the total wave which mechanically is a two parter single length, which spans through the Sun. In fact, to complete the model, wait for a few thousand years for the orbit of Venus to precess, until Venus arrives across the Sun from the Earth at Venus' orbit Periheleon position, then wait some more until Venus is in full Venus view in Aphelion of orbit position. There are in view therefore 3 different actual waves, comprising amplitude phases of the two parter solar waves (orbits). Why is this bulge being divulged as some kind of indulgent form of physics? Because it is the bulges, the 3 amplitudes, that hold the model for the wide width resonances of the RHO meson. Here is how, and it is simple. ----------------------------------------------------------------- HOW ABOUT THOSE RHO's the picture ----------------------------------------------------------------- ILLUSTRATION 1 RHO ------------------ IMAGE 1 RHO ----------- Earth Sun Venus .----*----.------------------------- * ----------------------.--*--.----- A P P A h^/(orbit amplitude wave) = RHO MeV . . . . . . . . |........... 775.135809795 ......................| | | . . |............ 772.906160625 ........................| | . . |............. 770.689301670 ..........................| . . . | . * . |......... 767.592951402 MeV ........................| | | * . |.......... 765.406423399 MeV ..........................| | * . |........... 763.232316887 Mev ............................| . | . |....... 760.195477903 MeV ................................| | | |........ 758.050832116 MeV ..................................| | |......... 755.918253135 MeV ....................................| Experiments listing masses as low as [753.5] MeV and as high as [778.] MeV were listed in 1984 data tables. Masses listed were as low as [764.0] Mev to a high of [777.4] MeV, in the 1994 data tables. There is an implicit suggestion revealed by the RHO state facts, that particle Compton wavelengths may have eccentricy, leading to widths that can be used to factor other particle mass states exactly. The intuitive image comes from the reason that the above RHO states are factors directly related to orbit eccentricity involving the symmetry set of 3/2- XION particles (three masses) in which orbital eccentricity is not a factor, whereas Moon orbit incrementation (which mechanically is a local form of width) occurs. These RHO resonances are approx. 1/2 the MeV values of the 3/2+ XION isospin and charge states for 1/2 (Earth + Venus) + and - Moon orbit orbits. And the RHO 765.406423399 MeV state is the wave (Compon) equivalent of the full orbital sum state of (Earth + Venus). The set of RHO's also connect to three other specific mass amplitudes, as follows: ILLUSTRATION 2 RHO ------------------ IMAGE 2 RHO ----------- Earth Sun Venus .--,-*-,--.------------------------- * ----------------------.--*--.----- A P P A . h^/(orbit amplitude waves) = RHO MeV . . . |.................. 770.689301670 ..........................| . . . 1/2 of (h^ of (earth + venus) - moon) = 767.6957576605 * . |.......... 767.592951402 MeV .......................| . . 1/2 of (h^ of (earth + venus) = 765.4064023875 * . |............ 765.406423399 MeV ..........................| . . 1/2 of (h^ of (earth + venus) + moon) = 763.1307034705 * .|............... 763.232316887 Mev ............................| * 5/2 E x FSC - P+ = 763.209153735 5/2 Electron mass, power amplified by the Fine Structure Constant, minus a Proton's mass. P+ = the Proton's MeV. IMAGE 3 RHO ----------- From h^/ (Earth apheilion + Venus perihelion) = 760.195477903 MeV * |....... 760.195477903 MeV ................................| - P+ (change sign) = 178.076832097 MeV - (N^- E), divide by FSC = 1.293780661 MeV when N^ is the Neutron - Proton mass difference = 1.293318 MeV FIT Reverse engineering---- when N^ = 1.293318 MeV (N^ x FSC) = N^ amplitude 177.231111868 MeV - P+ (change sign) 761.041198131 MeV - (N^ - E) = .782318940 MeV = 760.258879196 MeV where N^ - E = 1.293318 MeV - .510999060 MeV = .782318940 MeV --------------- end of RHO's =============== SATURN = PION =============== What is Saturn doing in the Solar System ? Let's go straight to dialogue. For instance, in the case of showing a direct correlation between the space length of the orbit of Saturn, and the Compton wavelength of the fundamental stable Pion particle, it need only be shown that a self evident happy correlation exists, concidering the following details which exclude any co-incidence, or even a magnificent or stunning co-incidence. No, not here, no amazing co-incidence. Stunning imagery is what is here, involving Saturn, and the Pion particle. The facts are that in elementary particles, there are few whose mass energies (MeV's) are found in the mass energy range of the Pion. There is the Muon with 105.6 MeV, the Pion itself with 139.6 MeV, and then a large gap, to the Kaon with a mass energy of 493.4 MeV. Nothing else occurs in this lower meson range. In the solar system there is a large gap between the orbit of Jupiter out to Saturn, Saturn having rouphly twice the orbit of Jupiter. Then Uranus having roughly 4 times the orbit of Jupiter, or twice the orbit of Saturn. In the midst of these wide departures from one data point to the next, in terms of solar orbits, and correspondingly in terms of elementary particle mass energies, there is one DIRECT HIT, this being, that the orbit of Saturn is holy smoke a mirror of the Compton wavelength of the Pion particle. Hey hEy HEY a mistake. It is not a mirror, it is a recurrance. The only proviso is that the solar image of space is a pure ratio of (10 to the power 27) times larger than the wavelengths of elementary particles. Something in the vibratory blueprints of Reality has occurred as a magnificent recurrance of exact kind, between the solor realm, and internal interactive small distances for nuclii and the elementary particles, as viewed through the Compton wavelengths of the particles. BOHR ORBIT MODEL ...... NO! Picture a mighty scene in place, that solor orbits are a blowup into the macro cosmos, of energy principles that behold the behavior of micro cosmic particles. Forget the old Bohr orbit model - the solar system loosely used to model a nature of electrons in shell orbits around a nuclii. Even though the Bohr model is known to be false, it is still good enough to introduce new readers to the topic of atomic, nuclear, and fundamental physics, even though the new reader then immediately proceeds to more correct information once the Bohr model has been intro- duced to get them started. The Bohr solar model has nothing to do whatever with the particle data physics now being married in recurrance partnership between the solar system and fundamental particle mass energy/Compton wavelength states, being disclosed in this paper you are reading for the first time. Hint Hint. What exactly is being modelled, or rather, portrayed, by the solar system is very obscure, at this point. The discloser, (moi) does not know, but suspects some mechanical orbiting of momentums and momentum states may be able to be seen in detail, once some more rooted concepts emerge by thinkers who know their fundamental physics, and can supply reason to mystery, just as did scrutinizing physicists supply eventual reasons to the initial mysteries of the Bohr solar model of the atom. Details are in PIONS IN THE SKY AT SATURN, in PART 11. PART 6 ------------------------------------------------------- HISTORY ------------------------------------------------------------ HISTORY How did a project like this get started? Probably one single co-incidental nature in particle wavelengths started the intrigue which engaged the curiosity to keep pushing into arcane areas until some sense began to gell out of hundreds and thousands of isolated pieces of data. Not one, but several systems of particle mass logics, has currently emerged. The single 'co-incidental nature' fact which started the big 'see' came in 1969 when randomly exploring particle Compton wavelengths to see if any information could be combed by fracturing them into lineal summed parts and looking at the fragments for other hidden masses. The logic was simple enough. Since Compton wavelengths have the nature of mathematical reciprocals contrary to the masses, then for instance, multiplying, say, the ELECTRON mass, by the Fine Structure Constant, then subtracting an ELECTRON mass from the result, and converting the two results to Compton wavelengths it is seen at once that a SMALL wave difference in the Compton wavelengths by itself, converts to a very LARGE equivalent mass. Good enough. But nothing was coming of this. SPOTTING A SOLAR ORBIT Similar explorations of the Compton wavelengths of the PROTON and NEUTRON, and also other entities such as the stable LAMBDA, XIONS and others, took place. Back in those days, an isospin state for a particle was commonly listed in the Data Particle Review Tables. For instance for the stable XION an isospin state was listed, along with splitting to charge states, for instance into negative and neutral masses for the 1/2+ XION mass energies, 2 particles concidered from one. It was noticed that the Compton wavelength for the XION isospin state was very close to in fact you could actually say the same as, the digital value for the orbit of the EARTH. This was just a co-incidence, until a major assumption was made, to treat the orbit of the EARTH as a wavelength, upon which the orbit of the moon was incrementally added and subtracted, and LO and BEHOLD! the two resulting waves corresponded rather well to the XION's split charge mass states seen as their Compton wavelengths. It was immediately found that VENUS had a similar split essence, with the orbit of the moon added and subtracted to VENUS coming up with Compton wavelength values for three ?/2 XION masses but at that time that XION state was not well known, and only that experiments had produced mass/energies which approximated those three 1823 MeV states coming from the VENUS waves, was seen. It was not long after that an exploratory step was taken, to look at the sum of the orbital distance comprising EARTH and VENUS to find that 1/2 the summed orbits of the two planets homed right in onto the masses and charge split range of the better known 3/2+ XIONS. It was the deterministic finding of THREE sets of solar orbital images that had mechanical corresponce to THREE particular XION families which triggered the idea that this could not be just a co-incidence. And the non-coindence was given a name to keep it in mind. The name was: The EARTH MOON Metaphor For Subatomic Phenomena. This name kept hanging around in consciousness for years. Gradually, over the years, some inspiration would occur to force time taken to explore other reaches of Compton wavelength factors in conjunction with further exploration for workable solar models keeping in jump step with changes to the Particle Data Tables and additions of new particles, and new estimated masses to the genre. Plus discrete re-evaluations of the fundamental constants, always ongoing by physicists. And always, particles dropping from tables. The whole project was put on hold in January of 1986, when a number of new insights came about, as a result of more precise definitions of UPSILON mesons which began to appear in the Particle Data Tables. There were numerous areas of confusion and ambiguity in the picture which was already starting to emerge. Mainly, how to determine that solar orbits were involved, seemed to be a major conjectural jumble. The project stayed on hold until middle December of 1994 when the brain which tends to work slowly suddenly realized that the whole of the emerging scheme could be presented entirely in the form of just Compton wavelengths for the particles involved, in which the particle MASSES could then be factored directly by lineal summing mathematics, to extremely high accuracy. The SOLAR orbits would just be models, in this suddenly epiphanated point of view. ERGO the RESULT. It is what now comprises this disclosure. However a change in the slow working brain's perception took place in putting together the final details of this disclosure through latter December of 1994 into the start of the new year. The perception now, is that the solar orbital models are REAL. The perception suggests that a Cosmic blueprint has orchestrated the formation of the solar system into its present patterns, and is synonymous with the patterns which are orchestrating formulas for elementary particles in reaches without, and inside, reaches of inner nuclear space. A mighty inter spacial RECURRANCE is in place, plain to see, out in the open. In this perception, the present day solar GRAVITATIONAL dynamics are the END PRODUCT resulting from the resonances and vibrations which caused the material to come together into its current form in the first place. Random disk accretion cannot be the law. A question stares stark in the face. Which came first, the solar system, or the eggs (particles). Perhaps the question is answered both ways. Taking a starting point, the PROTON is perhaps always there in the empirical realm the same kind of entity all the time. In the entirety of this disclosure the PROTON is just there. It is not derived from anything, nothing has been found to work back first to close in on a PROTON mass values. It is just T H E R E and everything else seems to spring into position around it. The ELECTRON, since its mass is derived from other fundamental constants is not immutable in size or density, but here in the solar system region it has finite shape. Since the mass density of the SUN is something of the order of 10 to the power 11 times more material per unit area of space than fills the PROTON, the solar bodies comprise objects that are more than a trillion times as dense as the vaporous energy called elementary particles. It seems that the super dense presence of a solar system's solid marbles may infer the final images, breached down into the particle realm's resonances. In this kind of thinking, it is possible that elementary particle sizes may actually differ in different solar systems throughout the cosmos. In other words, the sizes are not constants throughout creation. Except perhaps for the PROTON. PART 7 ------------------------------------------------------- CONVENTIONS ------------------------------------------------------------ LET h^ = Planks constant converter (Mev to Wave) (Wave to Mev) = equal (1.9732705332 MeV -11cm) = equals 1973.2705332 (convenient pure digit value) LET E = Electron's rest state mass and/or energy equivalent = .510999065 MeV LET FSC = Fine Structure Constant = 137.0359895 LET P+ = Proton MeV = 938.27231 MeV LET N^ = Neutron - Proton (mass energy difference) = 1.293318 LET Ko = Kaon neutral (497.672) FIT LET K+- = Kaon charged (493.677) FIT Proton masses when subtracted from lesser amounts of mass force a change of sign which is not always included in a string, for simplicity sake. Values reduced by the FSC (Fine Structure Constant) are shown as the reciprocal x 1/FSC since a divide sign is not available in the normal character keys of a typewriter keyboard. Since the whole of this disclosure has been typed for E-MAIL only the lower 128 ascii characters can be used to keep the text compatable with UNIX softwares. SHORT HAND CONVENTIONS Certain short hand conventions have been adopted to eliminate the need for tedious repititious data detailing, in which serious formats used by mathematic scholars are not known by this author, and so, formats have been invented to illustrate factors in a logically availing manner. SYMBOLIC LOGIC A form of invented 'symbolic logic' has been evoked to handle symbology for different physical terms, and a 'philosophy of science' of a unique kind has been invented to handle description of data derivations, mathematical techniques, and pictograms in the form of IMAGES and SCHEMATICS to illustrate results. None of these forms has little, if any, correspondence, to tradition physical or mathematical disclosure modes. See more about the 'logic' under INTRINSIC SYMBOLIC LOGIC in PART 21. FLOATING POINT DECIMALS In the floating decimal point system, used as the only decimal mode for the conventions, all decimal points are exactly as needed, at once showing whether for instance an MEV is, say, .510999065, or 938.27231, and whether a wave is 14.269906899 (Saturn's mean of orbit) or 1.49597927 (Earth's mean of orbit) or .oo384401 (Moon mean of orbit). RESULT OF CONVENTIONS AND SYMBOLIC LOGIC Doing calculations is entirely by the digits entered and resulting. All recourse to exponents (EXP) or systems of units, are completely dispensed with, and only resulting figures in exact digital matchups to Planetary Solar datas, or Particle Data Tables, is required in any calculations. The conventions do the job of keeping track of quantities effortlessly, automatically, without fail. DERIVATION CONVENTIONS Derivations typically assume the following conventions. For example: h^/(orbit) = (x) and (x) - P+ x 3/4 - P+ = particle MeV is incorrectly stated mathematically but follows a direct lineal logic, as follows: For h^, an automatic conversion ratio of (1 x 10 to -27) is assumed, which thus converts magnetudes from Cosmic to Subatomic space, ie. orbit (wave) to wavelength (Compton). Thus h^ can assume (1973.2705332 x (1 x 10 to -27)). ILLUSTRATIVE LOGIC AND SO h^/(orbit) = (x) and (x) - P+ x 3/4 - P+ = particle logically interprets as follows: Planks conversion divided by an orbit (wave) = (x1) a number (x1) x (1 x to 10 -27) = (x2) an MeV (x2) MeV, minus the Proton mass = (x3) (x3) divided by 4, then multiplied by 3 = (x4) (x4) minus the Proton mass = (x5) (change sign is assumed) (x5) a resulting particle's known mass energy MeV, calculated to high accuracy typically. To clarify the use of the illustrative logic, here is the same mathematical derivation, expressed in a more standard mathematical manner, using an actual example: (1/2 Earth + Venus) orbits, converted to subatomic wave (Compton) value, then converted to Mev, to which is subtracted the Proton mass, the result reduced by 3/4, then subtracted from the Proton mass, to yield a stable charged (KAON +-) mass energy, using the illustrative logical sequence, as follows, : h^/(orbit) - P+ x 3/4 - P+ = particle MeV EQ. 1 NOTE Specifically the above statement EQ. 1 is exactly as entered into a solid state calculator, step by step, to produce a result. CALCULATOR CONVENTIONS THUS WHEN 1.289034473 h^/(1/2 earth + venus) minus Proton divide by 3 times 4 minus Proton (change sign) - 1/3 electron = Kaon +- MeV DIGITALLY (1973.2705332 / 1.289034473) - 938.27231 x 3/4 - 938.27231 (sign) = 493.866906703 - 1/3 E = 493.6965573682 CHARGED KAON +- = 493.677 FIT WHERE divide (1973.2705332 / 1.289034473) = 3/2+ Xion 1530.81284772 MeV 1530.81284772 - 938.27231 = 592.540537729 MeV 592.540537729 x 3/4 = 440.405403296 MeV 440.405403296 - 938.27231 = - 493.866906703 MeV change sign = 493.866906703 MeV (Kaon +-) - .170333021 = 493.696573681 MeV (Kaon +-) IMPLICIT CALCULATOR LOGIC Therefore the implicit CALCULATOR logic in the statement: h^/(orbit) - P+ x 3/4 - P+ - 1/3 E = particle EQ. 2 is self evident, when any such statement is illustrated in the facts, as executed by a simple calculator device which does not require extra programming to add, subtract, multiply, and divide. The straight in, data entry steps, of EQ. 2 are the mathematical equation per se, also called 'strings'. This convention, IMPLICIT CALCULATOR LOGIC, supercedes the need for any evoked 'formal' approach to the mathematics needed to unfold the inclosed calculations and disclosures. In many ways, IMPLICIT CALCULATOR LOGIC is similar to the programming syntax used as protocals by the now abandoned programming regime known as APL in wide spread use in the early 80's for doing math on mainframe computers. In that regime, at least in some uses of it, terms were entered in a strict lineal fashion one step to the next to proceed from beginning to end in factoring a mathematical statement. Changing the sign, and reciprocating a result along the way, were the norm. I watched some work done by an APL programmer in which statements within statements were lineally entered first, as if unravelling an equation from the inside out. Sad to say, however, that one or two hours could be spend programming one step in APL, with, say, 35 steps more to go, while the whole string of 36 steps could be done in less than a minute on a calculator of non programable kind. - R.S.L. author That (APL), and the current IMPLICIT CALCULATOR LOGIC used to tackle equations for this disclosure, are a far cry from programmable computer logics, or computerized mathematics, in which algorythms are first written out by hand to figure out how to program in the statements for handling each individual kind of equation and each equation variant. The difficultly is that hundreds of different variants of an equation might be needed to hunt down an insight in a single spurt of intuition, and pre-programming is just simply impossible for insight floods coming in at a rate of 1/10th of a second per glimpse. The only way is to go the route of rote, handling each insight one at a time by hand in spurts of fast data entries using nothing but digits, since all proofs in physics are by balanced digits. Within the scales of balanced systems of units, the balanced digits are always the proof for the bottom line of empirical descriptions. IMPLICIT CALCULATOR LOGIC equations are as straight line lineal input/output as they can possibly be made to be, in this disclosure. It can also be called 'Calculator convention logic'. 'Calculator convention logic' will be frequently used in most of the following data disclosures, beginning next below in PART 8. Thus is explained away the whole of the missing maths; the boolean logics, the tensor whoola boolas, the gauge messages, the algebraic derivatives, the calculus, the logrythms, the statistical analysis, all vanished and replaced by D I G I T S linked together by coded strings of pure and simple logic. TEXT CONVENTIONS One difficulty (no matter what convention is used for data represention), is the lack of physical space on a page sized ordinary text screen in an IBM compatable computer, to depict much data on a single line. For this reason, some statements are in two (or more) lines, and sometimes more than one display has to be used to illustrate all insights for a particular derivation or factoring of data(s). Note that all of the datas and forms are typed in the normal characters of a standard typewriter keyboard so that the file itself can be routinely transmitted as E-MAIL in the 128 character set of Unix, via InterNet or netware equivalent systems in the information SuperHighway. ILLUSTRATIVE CONVENTIONS In fact, most of the datas being disclosed will be illustrated in several different ways to get at all of the insights intended. A standard illustrative form is typically shown in TABLE 5 where a number of data terms in a symmetrical group are tabled. Another typical form is IMAGE 1 UPSILON, in which waves are depicted along a base line symbolically representing the length of the waves. Attempts to illustrate to scale are meaningless due to large lineal wave distances between modelled entities.