House do phase bubbles multiply?

The way to think of it is, they chase nulls along the line of symmetry, called r When they surround nulls, there sample rate is the same, but their curvature goes as r squared.  When the embed nulls their sample rate remains but their curvature goes as r cubed. When the nulls are packed, the remaining bubbles are r squared! around the surface. Thus the multiply.

Nulls, doing nothing will be quantized by powers of radius, and packed nulls go as 3/2. But the size grows as (3/2) because of the phase squaring effect.

Group theorists tells us there is no perfect line of symmetry, there is always some coupling. near the Higgs density, phase gets clogged a bit, the r squared turns into the prime number separation. So the reason there is a huge wave number prime , 13, in the center of the proton, curling about a mass of free nulls is because of the prime number effect. And the number of free nulls they chase, in the center, is 12, which is not quit enough to pack, but perfect for the precision gyro effect.

In sample space, the coupling can be treated as a sampling side lobe. Up near higgs, where the prime number 13 is working, these side lobes cannot exceed 7, hence the three gluon modes for Baryons. The reason we can get two quarks is because there is no combination of side lobe that exceeds the limit.

In my spectral chart, starting from the electron at wave 75, I can see the up and down slot pairs, staring right at me, and taking six wave exponents.  Then 13 exponents fill up to 90, 91 not available.

So, using standard control theory, right away we have the bandlimit of the central gyro, 13, and the six gluons at 2.  All the six axis of symmetry balanced around the sphere. Here is my chart:

This whole adventure was simply me floundering about making sample data theory fit the articles in Wiki.

1 R2**n2 R1**n1 Error 78 543.4E+11 543.4E+11 65.7222 66 277.8E-03 79 815.1E+11 815.1E+11 66.5647 67 435.3E-03 80 122.3E+12 122.3E+12 67.4073 67 407.3E-03 81 183.4E+12 183.4E+12 68.2499 68 249.9E-03 82 275.1E+12 275.1E+12 69.0925 69 925.2E-04 83 412.6E+12 412.6E+12 69.9351 70 648.9E-04 84 619.0E+12 619.0E+12 70.7777 71 222.3E-03 85 928.4E+12 928.4E+12 71.6203 72 379.7E-03 86 139.3E+13 139.3E+13 72.4629 72 462.9E-03 87 208.9E+13 208.9E+13 73.3055 73 305.5E-03 88 313.4E+13 313.4E+13 74.1481 74 148.1E-03 89 470.0E+13 470.0E+13 74.9907 75 933.5E-05 90 705.0E+13 705.0E+13 75.8333 76 166.7E-03 91 105.8E+14 105.8E+14 76.6758 77 324.2E-03 92 158.6E+14 158.6E+14 77.5184 78 481.6E-03 93 238.0E+14 238.0E+14 78.3610 78 361.0E-03 94 356.9E+14 356.9E+14 79.2036 79 203.6E-03 95 535.4E+14 535.4E+14 80.0462 80 462.2E-04 96 803.1E+14 803.1E+14 80.8888 81 111.2E-03 97 120.5E+15 120.5E+15 81.7314 82 268.6E-03 98 180.7E+15 180.7E+15 82.5740 83 426.0E-03 99 271.0E+15 271.0E+15 83.4166 83 416.6E-03 100 406.6E+15 406.6E+15 84.2592 84 259.2E-03 101 609.8E+15 609.8E+15 85.1018 85 101.8E-03 102 914.8E+15 914.8E+15 85.9444 86 556.4E-04 103 137.2E+16 137.2E+16 86.7869 87 213.1E-03 104 205.8E+16 205.8E+16 87.6295 88 370.5E-03 105 308.7E+16 308.7E+16 88.4721 88 472.1E-03 106 463.1E+16 463.1E+16 89.3147 89 314.7E-03 107 694.6E+16 694.6E+16 90.1573 90 157.3E-03 108 104.2E+17 104.2E+17 90.9999 91 922.8E-07 109 156.3E+17 156.3E+17 91.8425 92 157.5E-03 110 234.4E+17 234.4E+17 92.6851 93 314.9E-03 111 351.7E+17 351.7E+17 93.5277 94 472.3E-03

Looking at digit systems

Shanon says:
2^N  - 1 = SNR
2^N is the next largest digit and is unused, 1 is the multiplicative identity.

If SNR continues to grow such that it is greater than 1.5 then the term on the left becomes:

2^N  - 2 = SNR and you are multiplying by two, making inefficient use of digits. So the efficient digit system shrinks s by one digit.

Thus, the SNR must be greater than 1/2 and less than 1 1/2 and there is always a finite number of digits in the efficient counter. The efficient digit system is one which uses all digits, and can enumerate sequentially. If the SNR is large, then the efficient system breaks into two systems, the one counts in units of the other.

That is the basic idea of a Huffman encoder. The most frequent thing gets one bit, separated by the zero.  Then the next most frequent thing can be two bits, separated by a zero, and so on, getting 101011010111010110....
The system works whenever you have a finite counter, a bandwidth limited system.

One can use this in reverse, say you want to know the digits system needed to count up three different things to the largest number.  But you need to know how SNR changes with each new digit system. In sphere packing, we want the most spheres packed per surface area, and you have three types of spheres, small to large. If we can prove small spheres go near the center, and we can compute volume to surface area each time we make a new digit system then we can sequentially determine the equivalent Avogrados number.

We pack the first spheres using SNR is r: rs^/rs^2, the is the radius of the small.  Then do the next set,but remove the volume of the first from the noise. Repeat one more time, and get three digits systems. If the number of spheres in each group are equal, then you know the sizes of each digits system, and its a matter of computing the optimum radius ratio.

Is this my Avogadro?

If we say the largest whole number the vacuum can count before hitting the density of free space, then what is the next whole number up? In other words, what is the next Shannon N such that:

(2^N)-1 = Signal/Noise
That number is (3/2)^127, corresponding to the Compton error of .0091507. I call that Higgs. I can count fractions down from there, but no whole numbers.

They tell me Avogadro is .037  below 2^79. So, I take my Higgs, convert to twos binary and get, log2((3/2)^127) = 74.29, which just happens to be .038 shy of 2^79. The percent is off by 10, but close.

Avogrado is simply the optimum size of a sphere when packed with finite sized things.My error should be 2^-8, instead is it 2^-5. But that is likely because the sphere is packed with three different finite sized things. So we are back to packing theory.

What is happening? My theories are confused, numbers often inverted, I am always missing things.  But there are limited combinations way up at the limit of light, so fumbling around often works. Think like a vacuum.

Then we have the electron wave number

75 + 17 = 92, take away the 1/3 of electron mass (1/6 of its wave) which is devoted to phase imbalance, we get 91. The 17 being the exponent of the constant that appears in the proton/electron mass. So, the physicist fires an electron, with exponent 91-17, at the proton who then returns that difference plus its own null  exponent.

And we learned the proton is doing something in quants of radius because the proton gyro machine likely wants to keep volume/surface are minimal.

There, finally I am convinced where the electron sits on my spectral chart.

What is the electron precision at that point? .009335. What is electron null number? 89.  Wave 75. The errors on either side of the Compton pair are in the .14 range.

Thus, without a doubt, my spreadsheet is correct, since it computed the electron number out of thin error well before it computed the proton numbers and the reversal of causality is impossible.  The proton and my spreadsheet agree on the universal digits. Both my spreadsheet and the proton discovered the number 17 independently, neither watch Sesame Street.

And, the proton gyro is, in fact, a volume/area minimizing machine with six degrees of freedom, about a center, three bubble sizes and is uses hyperbolic functions. We know it uses hyperbolic, because we know it is governed by its Shannon orthogonality, the hyperbolic are solutions and are positive in their Taylor series.

One could work the problem both ways, wave or null, using 2/3 as an adjustment or 1/2+sqrt(5)/2 as an adjustment.  The proton, nor my spreadsheet cannot tell the difference between rational and irrational fractions.

That means we need to find all the gluon/quark pairs within that range. Three times 7 is 21, (in Null) we are at the edge, so the quark gluons are definitely sharing three slots apiece. and your quark transformation matrix will be measuring the shift between one slot pair to another. The diagonals will be the total precision of that shift within the three slot pairs.Physicists will call the three sets color, and the shift will be up/down charm/strange and top/bottom. Since it is a total three slots per, the charge, being the amount of phase difference in the wave shift, will be in units of 2/3 and 1/3.

And, the proton is working with the electron slot pair, we still have to fit the X/Z Boson pair in there somewhere. So my guess is that proton thus booted the magnetic slot and used it to carry the one.

A big clue:

As long as the proton is making wave outside its radius, and stays within its precision, it can borrow wave numbers above its nominal 91, but below the 107 point. Look up there, there is a fine and dandy little pair of slots that could make a couple of Bosons to connect nuclii. ANd, the wave number, 107, I define to be the Higgs wave, it is reserved for the quasar.

Hence:

Using the power of prime numerology, one could take the difference in exponents at, 19 Null (108-19) and (92-17), add in the borrowed magnetic slot,  abd borrowed slots above 91, and construct a twos digit system and do all your computations in that.  The twos system will count out the total precision when done, and thus verify we have an Avogadro. 

The fractions in your twos binary system should count out a dandy periodic table.

Furthermore, I predict the quasar will make lots of negative protons, and the baryon jet will spew all baryons types, the positive protons dropping out first, the neutron getting trapped in heavy gravity, and the negatives making it to the top; like a massive mass spectrometer.

OK, I have this mass thing figured out

The physicist throws an electron at a proton at one unit of momentum. This causes the proton to return the exponent of itself, times 2/3, 108*2/3

The physicist calls that (108*2/3) * 17* 3/2 = 108*17 = 1836.

The proton, in units of electron mass, = the proton exponent times 17.

Which is the V/A * 17  = 17*  [108^3]/[108^2] which should be the radius, 108. The 17 includes a 1/3 and other stuff to be decided later. Thus, using Shannon,


2^[log2(3/2)*108] -1 = 17*volume/area of a proton sphere. V/A is the standard signal to noise in a lot of of physics. The constant 17 will be decomposed later.

So, in conclusion.

If you are trying to measure the volume of something, and are blocked because the thing has area, then use quants of radius, you get the best accuracy. Good advice.

If the proton is Shannon orthogonal, and Avagadro implies it is, and I will verify, then; the radius digit, (3/2)^108, and the (1/2+sqrt(5)/2)^91, are single digit measurements of the proton and should compare.

So, 1/wave = radius and physicists think that goes as mass, so I think I have my Comptons in good shape. The cyclotron is measuring the wave number of the proton, they will get (1/2+sqrt(5)/2)^91.

The Fibonacci folks win the boobie for finding the sample rate of light.

The folks doing the muon atom want to find the best wave/null quant, to the nearest integer in and about these numbers. Look at the difference between the best two, are they within 9.288e-5?

OK, here is a starter theory

Just for grins, a simple starting point:

Protons like to hang about between quasars and heavy gravity L1 spots, where bubbles are small, they balance there.
Neutrons are happy right within the heavy gravity packs nulls, and
Negative protons hang north of that where bubbles are big, they balance there.

The next integer up is:

[(3/2)^108 * 3/2]^108 and

[(1/2+sqrt(5)/2)^91 * (1/2+sqrt(5)/2)]^91

If your computer goes that high.

But wait, how does free space work without its three bubbles!

Good question. Since the proton is working the three bubble thing, then free space needs, lets see, the free proton, the packed gravity and the what? I dunno?
I mean, to organize the universe, something has to compute hyperbolic functions. There must be negative baryons up there somewhere. If they existed, they would be between the quasars and the heavy gravity, would we really see them?

Antiprotons have been detected in cosmic rays for over 25 years, first by balloon-borne experiments and more recently by satellite-based detectors. The standard picture for their presence in cosmic rays is that they are produced in collisions of cosmic ray protons with nuclei in the interstellar medium, via the reaction, where A represents a nucleus:
p + A → p+ p +p+ A
The secondary antiprotons (p) then propagate through the galaxy, confined by the galactic magnetic fields. Their energy spectrum is modified by collisions with other atoms in the interstellar medium, and antiprotons can also be lost by "leaking out"^{[citation needed]} of the galaxy.
The antiproton cosmic ray energy spectrum is now measured reliably and is consistent with this standard picture of antiproton production by cosmic ray collisions.^[2] This sets upper limits on the number of antiprotons that could be produced in exotic ways, such as from annihilation of supersymmetric dark matter particles in the galaxy or from the evaporation of primordial black holes. This also provides a lower limit on the antiproton lifetime of about 1-10 million years. Since the galactic storage time of antiprotons is about 10 million years, an intrinsic decay lifetime would modify the galactic residence time and distort the spectrum of cosmic ray antiprotons.

Now we got ourselves a real puzzle. My problem is there is no intrinsic property of the vacuum called charge, or negative; for that matter. How could there be? Fermi Dirac started with the assumption of this intrinsic property, then derived the flip over.  I can see not much more than some things bigger than others. Hmmm...

Units must be vectors, I think is the problem

Having eliminated the units of physics, and replaced them with the single unit of Things Counted, then I must acknowledge the vector. Things counted along an axis of symmetry

This issue came to me as I was wondering how to write the equations of gyro for the proton. It seemed simple, the mass of free nulls in the center of the proton simply wants to manipulate the cosh and sinh functions of the quark/qluon bpairs, so as to maximize the distribution of large and smaller bubbles around it. Then it occurred to me, most of the parameters are defined relative to one of six two dimensional angles from center, and three amplitudes.  It is the axis of symmetry, a subject I left long ago while trying to understand the scalar units of physics.

Then, your cosh and sinh functions will have something called, the packed nulls of the quarks treated as a unit along this axis of symmetry, for example.  Time becomes the relative number of samples to complete one sequence of adjustments to the equations. And the mass of the proton becomes the relative RMS deviation of the center of the proton from any distance out from center.

Like those physicists struggling with the muon atom. Their problem is all the units, since forever, have been defined in term of the standard electron atom.  So a lot of units get carried across as common units, for convenience, and everything is correct, relative to the electron atom and instruments made thereof. It is not relativity, it is physicist being damn good and doing things the vacuum never really tries to do.

Like getting an independent measure of magnetic permeability. Where you gonna go? You make magnetism using the proton. You go into space, you have free protons.  You are stuck.

So far, the only trustworthy unit of physics I have found is the number of leftover prime numbers. Take the prime that showed up in the proton/electron mass ratio. 108*17 = 1836.  The proton found that prime, how? Does it have an axis of symmetry for every prime?  Second, the mass definition hung around for all these years because the proton used just that prime, and physicists hung on to it, it was a stable measure of entropy.
I think the wave always makes opposing sinh and cosh, and gets another mode.
How did the proton find that prime?

Process of elimination, any other wave mode up in that region caused interference and the exchange rate exceeded the sample rate of light, the group broke down.  Eventually, a power series made of that unique prime was unused, and stable, it stuck. If you trace that prime thru the important constants of physics, you  will find it showing up in measurements related to that particular wave mode. I always look in the constants related to apparent sample rate when converting things to Shannon form. Of the 91 = 7 * 13, I expect either 7 or 11 devoted to the quark/gluon; and the other devoted to W,K bosons.
When I get time, I would look for combinations that make up the 377, space impedance, and see if 17 shows up. I look to see if a constant has volume, area, linear; what was the axis of symmetry, then I factor out units of Pi, often, then compare with wave and null quant on my spectral chart. Is it a huge number? I convert to one of my quant ratios to an exponent.  Little tricks of counting things up.

Consider the gluons again.  What is the precision of the proton? How many twos digits. I know the whatever happens in the center of the proton has to meet that precision, I have two primes.  Limited choices. But are the primes cubed , squared, or linear?  I assume 7 is devoted to the center gyro motions, because 13 times and other of the axii of symmetry will break light.  So, 13 is likely for matching quark packed nulls.

But wait! Wasn't 13 for W and K bosons? Maybe, a uniqu channel, I dunno.  Where on my chart is the boundary for the proton that begin the orbitals? Dunno, I just found out about mass. and so on.

Then  root of 5? That should not show up anywhere, except when the physicist is doing a Taylor series expansion, then I look.  I find it in the  GR equations. I always look above the proton in my chart, sometimes we get left overs, things that don't happen, probably don't happen right on the best spot above the proton integer.

Here is another big trick I use. Planck finds whole numbers, Einstein finds fractions. That one has gotten me out of jams many times. Anything with Lorentz and dialtion, stay away, you end up cancelling time like eight times.

Avagadros number. Its  a Shannon match, 2^79. So I go look on my spectral chart, converting that to mass or wave. I find spots where there is a very close match, usually 4*108 and 4*91, how far away am I? OK, 2^4, I know I should be looking around 2^20 or so, I go look there. But, I get to use 4 digits of proton precision!, do not forget. I know that number will end up matching the average distance of the electron orbital, so I keep it in that back of my mind. Eventually it will come. Likely I am going to find the distance from the top of the proton to the edge of the electrons a Shannon match, likely (3/2)^36, but I haven't checked.

Another trick. Power series of power series come out as minimal spanning trees.  The digits, in total, should be log(N), N being the height. When at minimal spanning tree, then you can bet the quants do not interfere at the constant exchange rate. Every thing the vacuum does should be a hyperbolic function. The vacuum never subtracts.

Yet another trick. When you see a measured constant, say 123.12345...; then check the precision of that with the precision of the proton.

Last but not least.  My wave number, 91, at the top is correct, but it may have a factor of two in the, 2*91. So beware, you may have more room to play.

I mean, you have limited choices, its a process of elimination.

Until we have axis of symmetry, no units.

I can't be measuring entropy

If I was I would be using 2 binary and have something like a 50 digit number, much smaller. I just powered up on a quant level, nothing more.

What is the relationship between the proton mass and the electron mass? The electron mass is the limit of inertia of the neutron, no?

Even if I was, log(x) = log(y) when x = y, since I would use the common logarithm.  But, how did the physicists ever do log base 3/2 on the mass of the electron?

If the electron was a measure of the change in exponent then we have the answer. F = (3/2)^n dF = N(3/2)^(N-1) dF/F = N*(2/3)

So if we are standardizing mass as a change in F relative to some phase offset then the standard is N*3/2, where N is the exponent of the proton.

Compton says I am measuring mass if my ratios are right.

As an aside, I make the assumption the world is encoded, so everything we pick in the world will be enumerated by a 108 digit number in base (3/2), for example. So, in my world, there are (3/2)^109 -1 enumerated  items to pick. When put in twos binary,  all my -log(i) are all within one, or they are all equivalent fractions, and fractions are all within one half.

But these numbers are in that format. Except that the proton would be 2^N-1 if things were in that format.

But, time and distance for my model are the same, they are the constant number of nulls in the proton. Time is the sequence of exchanging each null, distance is the sequence of changing each null, at the sample rate of light.  The proton moves N nulls in a  time N nulls.

What is the proton's intertia? Is that a resistance to a force? Lets call a force a phase gradient that it must tolerate. Well, it has about 1e19 Nulls in the thing, when more than about 20,000 are late for phase exchange, it will move one Null distance in curved phase gradient of  earth.  The 20,000 is the inverse of precision, or 9.388e-5.

How is that in mass? Well, time, distance and mass are all the same, the number of nulls that will exchange in one complete sequence of a Proton, at the exchange rate of light.

Why is the 1836 proton/electron mass so accurate? I think I have it.

I think I am confused, my exponents are null  and frequency units, my powers are groups of nulls and groups of frequencies.  In base two, my powers would be units of entropy. But this is weird:

  1836 = 3*3*3*2*2 *17  = 108*17

The mass of a proton to an electron, this has to be  quants, not exponents. So my magic number must be energy ratio. Or they are screwed. Something is not right. When I count quants, I use a digit system with base 1.5, their number is, really, base two. Log2(1836) = 10.84, a ten digit number. This is weird, must contemplate.

It has to be mee, measuring entropy, not mass.

They did this integral somewhere. Then 3/2 was in the dt somewhere, likely measuring momentum.

Is this it? Is it this simple? The q, what they call the standard charge is 1/6 of the proton Compton wavelength, (1/2 of the electron is packed with unbalanced phase) so it matches matches the Compton mass.

But then they have all those artificial units of time to get a mass relationship:

So I have to sort out one of those equations where time, the non existent unit, appears in several places.  Also they have the c thing in there. I need to replace everything with Units of Bubbles.

Here is the thing. I think what they call m is really nulls.   The qB is really a phase offset proportional to the Proton wavelength, remember, B was defined by the atom using proton measuring skils, as was charge.  They are all units of Proton wavelength, or 1/Compton wave quant. So all the nulls cancel on the top.  Frequency is just a ratio in relativistic terms, it is simply a constant number of null exchanges in the proton. The phase offset is simply going to match the constant number of exchanges. 

So they integrate this thing over the frequency cycle they get log(Nulls), they get the exponent of (3/2)^108, multiplied by a constant. The group theory folks are not talking to the cyclotron folks.

This force must match the qB on the particle phase. They take a square root somewhere, getting time, making qB/(2*pi*m) The r/T remaining becomes the frequency. The radius should cancel because the magnetic/charge effect is distance dependent. But they need to keep one time unit because of circular motion.

If they just divide thru by f, the get mass*time per one cycle. But still, even if they integrated it would have been a constant.



The 17 in the exponent is likely from that Avogadro guy.

This guy. I still remember his big number.
6.02214129(27)×10<sup>23

I used to do PV=NRT, the gas law.
But looking thru all the derivations I did see him show up, though for a clue, his number is very close ro 2^79-1, makes me suspicious. But it does show up in the definition of mass.</sup>
 
  

Mathematicians, please intervene here, you are needed.