Does alpha one need beta two?

[AntonioLao]

Two of the three product of any radioactivity are alphas and betas. The 3rd are the gammas. Radioactivity is usually classified as nuclear fission. It says the resulting mass of each of the nuclei is less than each of the original nuclei before the reaction. On the other hand, the resulting mass of each of the nuclei of nuclear fusion is more than each of the original nuclei. Since all nuclei are composed of protons and neutrons, if the total numbers of protons and neutrons remain constant before and after each nuclear reaction whether fission or fusion then clearly the end product of fission has more nuclei than that of fusion. For example, supposed there are 32 nuclei of deuteron. Since fusion of two deuterons produces one nucleus of Helium-4, the end product has only 16 nuclei of Helium-4. Clearly this reaction reduces the product nuclei by half as much. Although each of the deuterons can be electrically neutralized by one electron to reform a neutral atom of heavy water, each of the Helium-4 nuclei needs two electrons to become an electrically neutral atom of helium. Each of the Helium-4 nuclei has the same composition as an alpha particle and energetic fast moving electrons are usually called betas, clearly each alpha does need two betas to become nobly stable.

These nuclear processes hide a simple mechanism of neutralizing any form of radioactivity. It requires the deceleration of both alphas and betas then pairing each alpha with exactly two betas. Equivalently, the linear momentum of each particle must be completely transformed into the corresponding angular momentum of the joint particles, which is retransforming a fission reaction into a fusion reaction. Unfortunately, this reverse reaction requires more energy than the intended natural fission reaction. Moreover, it is naturally easier to do fission than to do fusion using a physical principle of kinetic collision at high temperature and pressure. However, a theory of cold fusion would not depend on a theory of collision at high temperature and pressure, which are two key factors for a successful hot fusion.

[labelwench]

I dare to post the following joke on a thread in a mathematics forum because it speaks to the mathematical method. No offense intended. I thought it was rather cute.

There were two men trying to decide what to do for a living. They
went to see a counselor, and he decided that they had good problem
solving skills.

He tried a test to narrow the area of specialty. He put each man in a
room with a stove, a table, and a pot of water on the table. He said
"Boil the water". Both men moved the pot from the table to the stove
and turned on the burner to boil the water. Next, he put them into a
room with a stove, a table, and a pot of water on the floor. Again,
he said "Boil the water". The first man put the pot on the stove and
turned on the burner. The counselor told him to be an Engineer,
because he could solve each problem individually. The second man
moved the pot from the floor to the table, and then moved the pot from
the table to the stove and turned on the burner. The counselor told
him to be a mathematician because he reduced the problem to a
previously solved problem.

In for a penny, in for a pound. Here is one more.

A Mathematician (M) and an Engineer (E) attend a lecture by a
Physicist. The topic concerns Kulza-Klein theories involving physical
processes that occur in spaces with dimensions of 9, 12 and even
higher. The M is sitting, clearly enjoying the lecture, while the E
is frowning and looking generally confused and puzzled. By the end
the E has a terrible headache. At the end, the M comments about the
wonderful lecture. The E says "How do you understand this stuff?"
M: "I just visualize the process."
E: "How can you POSSIBLY visualize something that occurs in
9-dimensional space?"
M: "Easy, first visualize it in N-dimensional space, then let N go to 9."

[AntonioLao]

These jokes implied the fact that for the world to function effectively, it needs mathematicians, engineers, physicists, biologists, politicians, medical doctors, janitors, electricians, plumbers, care providers, psychologists, so on and so forth, all hard workers that contribute to society. The world does not need terrorists, murderers, robbers, thieves, sociopaths, dictators, etc.

[SteveA]

These jokes implied the fact that for the world to function effectively, it needs mathematicians, engineers, physicists, biologists, politicians, medical doctors, janitors, electricians, plumbers, care providers, psychologists, so on and so forth, all hard workers that contribute to society. The world does not need terrorists, murderers, robbers, thieves, sociopaths, dictators, etc.

Yes, I'm certain some "occupations" are significantly less important and shorter lived than others, even if it's simply because they can't be naturally sustained, though what use would there be for a mind if everything was simply left up to nature - we can possess values and make decisions and don't need to follow a course of all the pains of "random" mutations. At a minimum, it seems worth giving it a try.

[labelwench]

Yes, I'm certain some "occupations" are significantly less important and shorter lived than others, even if it's simply because they can't be naturally sustained, though what use would there be for a mind if everything was simply left up to nature - we can possess values and make decisions and don't need to follow a course of all the pains of "random" mutations. At a minimum, it seems worth giving it a try.

Hmmmm.......The brain is a product of nature.
Math is a concept of mind, arising in the brain.
Nature seems to have a mathematical design, in many respects.

Rather intriguing.

Which came first?

Math or nature?

[theunify]

Labelwench,

I've come by this thread to cruise and see what's happening and come accross these questions which you propose. Are you aware of a rubix cube? It is a device quite unique, it is a problem yet it contains it's own solution, I believe that is the avenue of thought most presently serving your question/answer.

Perhaps a little research into nature will reveal some math, and some math will burn your out and you will seek out nature.

~theunify

Hmmmm.......The brain is a product of nature.
Math is a concept of mind, arising in the brain.
Nature seems to have a mathematical design, in many respects.

Rather intriguing.

Which came first?

Math or nature?

[labelwench]

Labelwench,

I've come by this thread to cruise and see what's happening and come accross these questions which you propose. Are you aware of a rubix cube? It is a device quite unique, it is a problem yet it contains it's own solution, I believe that is the avenue of thought most presently serving your question/answer.

Perhaps a little research into nature will reveal some math, and some math will burn your out and you will seek out nature.

~theunify

Hello theunify,

Yes, I am aware of the rubik's cube, although I have never taken the time to solve the riddle of one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubik%27s_Cube

I spend a great deal of time outdoors in nature, observing the marvels to found there, although with the present outdoor temperature at -32C, the appeal is of shorter duration.

I am unclear of your meaning in the sentence I have italicized in blue, unless you are wishing me to go elsewhere?

Perhaps you could elaborate on this for me?

[theunify]

You may prefer to interpret " a little research into nature " without interpretation.

~theunify

[labelwench]

You may prefer to interpret " a little research into nature " without interpretation.

~theunify

You may prefer to interpret " a little nature " without interpretation meaning I never suggested you dive head first.
originally posted by theunify prior to editing.

Having compared the two statements, I shall now ponder instead why you edited.

gmail notice is a good reference in tracking the evolution of a post.

[SteveA]

Hmmmm.......The brain is a product of nature.
Math is a concept of mind, arising in the brain.
Nature seems to have a mathematical design, in many respects.

Rather intriguing.

Which came first?

Math or nature?

In terms of the distinction between the brain as a physical object and the mind as an integration of thoughts and experiences, then we could ask - which knows of the existence of which?

The mind witnesses physical experiences and learns of those properties. Those learned properties are conceptual, geometric and mathematical but the information arises from qualities of perceptions (colors, sounds, textures) that I believe corelate with what you're referring to as natural.

So I'd say the brain (as most any other form of knowledge of experiences) is an integration (mathematical/geometric/logical form) of perceptual information presented in the form of (what I believe are) fundamental qualia of experience (though even the concept of a mind could be considered the same).

I similarly think the mind itself arises from or exists within a space of a more fundamental form of logic (potentially very simple, though highly extensible) which maybe can't be represented precisely by thoughts constructed to represent it - whatever the limits of conception or comprehensible experience are would seem to be the same limits as that of the mind, but the "dimensions" that the mind works with are in terms of "natural" qualities of experience. Another consideration is that in many ways there should be no real conceptual limit to the mind because any conception that there is such a limit would still appear to be something present within the mind. That seems to be a recurring theme I've found - with a bit of creativity there seems to always be someway to "go around" some apparent obstacle, even if it's in a highly abstract manner. The limits seem to be more realistically in terms of efficiency (which imples some metric/value to measure it by) in time ... given enough time there may not be any (detectable) limit to the complexity of what the mind could conceive of (what would be the "overmind" that could conceive of what limits a mind possessed?)

To simplify it, I think the logical/mathematical framework is individually selected by every "fundamental thing" (including oneself) and that all these are shared perceptions/qualia that are seen as nature (every thing is potentially a property of experience to everything else) and the capability for that is the common property defining the universe (but again, there would appear to be no way to actually reference anything outside ones own universe so I'm simply abstracting to areas of existence that would just be based upon faith. For example, we could discuss the existence of the RS-232 protocol for communication but we're using the internet and so the information is formatted in TCP/IP instead and so in many ways it doesn't matter what format is believed to have been used "exteriorly", the information is always interpreted within whatever context the receiving end is using (and that might be that the reception was simply of incoherent chaotic "junk", even if it seemed perfectly clear on a transmitting side - the natural symbol conveyable by a "thing" would appear to be simply itself, whether or not its visible or in what context it exists would appear to be determined by the "receiving" end. Fundamentally time/change appears to be something that can't be imposed externally - whatever "clock" (which could be a highly chaotic and multidimensional or even infinitely diverse reference) something uses would be self selected, but for any form of communication to exist some common unit would still appear required and that's what I have to assume would be the equivalent of the "God particle" (or property) for a universe, even if it controls nothing directly but simply enables everything else to be integrated ... on the other hand, there could be multiple such "God particles" with qualities specific to whatever "things" happen to possess it as a common attribute ... once again it would appear that the determination of such would remain something self determined even if that was unknown/uncontrolled/fated (for example, someone could switch to using an RS-232 communication format instead, but then the more fundamental "protocol" would then be the physical ability to interact and determine which such protocol was used ... it doesn't appear to matter what's done - every controlled decision or action creates a lasting relationship that remains traceable back to the same drive and system of reference and I assume "trying" to do nothing doesn't alter that either. That's a one way street when it comes to entropy and has a dead end, though that can be extended (potentially very significantly) by constructing new contexts (multiple things become abstractly treated as a single object), but that's still likely finite ... in the end, it appears there remains the "next thing" and how that works is beyond my understanding, though it's interesting to consider that such would not appear to be localizable within any specific prior space - it would likely appear both pervasively present as well as detached and unrelated to properties of a previous space, though I assume that associations with a prior space could then place this within the context of being similar to new properties/dimensions/attributes over time and there's potentially a large extension to the controllable aspects of how the evolution of its relationships to previous spaces occurs. In a sense such events appear to occur quite often though as new concepts, emotions or other forms of experience occur, but then again these could be partly similar to constructing new abstractions or contexts from previously experienced qualities. If you filled up a space completely with all possible contexts, it would appear any addition would be entirely uncontrolled and not localizable ... it seems an intermediate form of growth with fewer jarring events could be better though - you trade off some exposure to additional unknowns in order to retain a space of self determined contexts for them so you never have precise control, but you also never lose control completely and there's always a large space of possibilities to work with and asymmetry to "navigate" by, but that takes some creativity and self control. It's also interesting to consider the possibility of some forms of growth that make some short term tradeoffs for potentially the best of most every aspect of this ... but it seems a rather complex concept that might require a lot of attention and "freestyling" and in that respect might be unstable with a finite attention span . In fact that could resemble some personal relationships? )

Hopefully all those run on thoughts didn't put anyone to sleep, and in some aspects it appears counterproductive to attempt to detail some of these ideas, but on the other hand there's a point where the picture's large enough and it's best to just work with what's at hand and leave other things for another day.