149.1 BEC, 918 and 9180
Date: 06/16/04

Bose-Einstein Condensate (BEC),
918 and 9180

Once upon a time I wondered if one electron had 918 parts. Using an internal structure based upon grids of the 64 kua I-Ching and its spheric equivalent, the 4x4x4 cube molded into a spherical hemisphere, I formed 4 levels of 16.

This model not only divided the magic cube into 4 integrated magic square, 2D grids of 16, it also incorporated the strange number 918 which has morphing association with its partners: 189, 891 and 981 through mathematic manipulation called integration.

All of this was leading to a single electron having 918 parts or 918 photons. Doubling these we have the 1836 Mev of the electron/proton ratio, which was assuming that one electron required a partner electron. However, an electron may require a partner called a positron. No matter what the partner is called, the electron cannot exist by itself.

Adding Douglass White's information, he seems to dismiss 919 (my 918) as implausible, pertaining to his "mass ratio between epo (epo = electron-positron pair) and neutron". However, he raises 918 by a factor of 10 which he develops into 9180 electron-positron pairs, saying, "such an entity would have 0 charge: it would be neutral".

So we still have to explore a hypothetical 918 photons per electron, indicating 1/2 of the 1836 Mev electron-proton ratio. Then we will examine White's 919 as a poor choice for the "epo-neutron mass ratio" and then there is White's power of 10.........9180 electron-positron pairs.

Building his theory from string and superstring theory, vibrating in 10 dimensions, he multiplies:

"136 vibrational modes two at a time one for electron, one for positron (as in the epo. epo = electron-positron pair) this would give 136 x 135, or 18,360 different ways for a lepton, joined as an epo, to vibrate in 10 dimensions. (This is Sirag's computation, but he lacked the idea of electron-positron pairs. He ordered them two at a time ". . .e.g., one for proton, one for electron. . .") Thus a combination of 9180 electron-positron pairs would be a very stable arrangement, filling all of the possible vibrational modes in ten dimensions."

### Here are my developments followed by White's developments.

17.3 The 4 x 4 x 4 Magic Cube Electron Theory

Magic Cubes Definitions, Formulas, Construction, Combinatorics

Found on 4/13/02: I've made, what I consider a major step toward what I think is the correct Magic Cube associated with the above I-Ching pattern, which is an analysis of the 64 I-Ching kua.

This step in the correspondence between the I-Ching of 64 squares in an 8 x 8 matrix and this 4 x 4 x 4 Magic Cube equivalent, is based upon the theory that the 4 x 4 x 4 = 64 cube units represent the 64 squares of the 8 x 8 I-Ching. Further study should show that the photon moves through this 4 x 4 x 4 Magic Cube in a binary pattern, two photons always being equal, balanced and forward / backward opposed, giving us a picture of the spin 1/2 photon cooper pair.

I noticed that with an overlay of Level 1, 2, 3 and 4 :

1. One from column A 1+48+32+49 = 130 or 1/2 of 260 of the Mayan Tzolkin.
2. Every column adds to 130.
3. Every row adds to 130.
4. Level 1/Column 1/Row 1 + ( correction:Level 4/Column 4/Row 4 ) = 1+64 = 65
5. Level 3/Column 1/Row 4 + Level 2/Column 4/Row 1 = 20+45 = 65

 Level 1: 1 63 62 4 Level 2: 48 18 19 45 60 6 7 57 21 43 42 24 56 10 11 53 25 39 38 28 13 51 50 16 36 30 31 33 Level 3: 32 34 35 29 Level 4: 49 15 14 52 37 27 26 40 12 54 55 9 41 23 22 44 8 58 59 5 20 46 47 17 61 3 2 64

Now, I remembered a number from Gary's study that I knew had something to do with the 7 levels of the electron and that number was 918. He had figured out 918's morphed form 198 = COMMUNICATIONS DEVICE and another twist 918 - 819 = 99 = MIND SQUARED = THOUGHT. Gary had defined 9.18, 189, 891 and 918 but I had to ask him to define what 981 was. This proved to be a very complicated task.

981 showed itself to be elusive until Gary did some alphanumeric cross adding on the following words and their numeric equivalents, then 981 manifested:

Gary: "The picture that presented itself as "981" is, in a sense, three dimensional."

"The 981 Picture In Three Parts:

1. THE GREAT PYRAMID OF GIZA IS NINE EIGHT ONE = 387
2. THE GREAT PYRAMID OF GIZA IS A COMMUNICATION DEVICE = 459
3. THE JEHOVAH SEED = 135"

"387+459+135 = 981"

So the conclusion he arrived at was:

TETRAHEDRAL PYRAMID = 198
27 + 171 = 198 = COMMUNICATION DEVICE

At this point you might ask, why am I trying to tie "tetrahedral pyramid", "communication device", the Giza pyramid, magic cubes and electrons together?

### The 4x4x4 Magic Cube Electron Theory

I believe that an electron is an atomic level communications device that works as a magic cube of 4 x 4 x 4. This theory needs more work.

### Discovering Some Interesting Numbers

918 photon positions of 1 electron / 666 notes (of the 53 cycles of fifths Hightower) = 1.3783783784, the fine structure constant fractal.

918 (photons per electron) / 64 kua of a 4 x 4 x 4 Magic Cube = 14.34375 (Grace Factor)
14.34375 ^7 power = 918 (the number of photons per electron),
14.34375 ^8 power = 1836 (the atomic weight of the proton).

What this may be telling us is that the number of photons per electron (918) divided by the total Magic Cube, 64 kua (surface of electron), equals the factor 14.34375 (Grace Factor), when raised to the 7th octave note level, as its extremity........transitions, splits, doubles or mirrors itself when raised to its 8th power, which should be the next octave.

### Working The 64 I-Ching Magic Squares

I created a drawing of 4 separate, flat, 2D, cubic levels of 4 x 4 magic squares. Matches of 1 and 33, 32 and 64 oscillated between the first 2 top levels and the 2 bottom levels. I began to realize that these 4 levels of 4 groups of 16 cubes were following the pattern mapped by the 8 x 8 I-Ching but it was not being as resonant as I would have liked.

I moved the drawing of 4 groups of 16, around, to a configuration in accord with Buckminster Fullers advice, who said, "the electron is one- layer-thick". This I took to mean a one-layer-sphere of photons. So, upon that advice I attached the 4 groups of 16 together in a manner agreeable with the above 8 x 8 2D I-Ching, so that, when folded left to right, top to bottom, the 4 groups of 16 would form a one-layer-thick sphere.

I then divided this sphere through the equator, plus all the appropriate longitudinal and latitudinal divisions.

The final form is a sphere with 32 magic cubes of 8 sectors AH, in the North and 32 magic cubes of 8 sectors AH in the South, all only one layer thick, thus guaranteeing each magic number in the North has an opposite magic number in the South. Total magic cubes = 64. I still have to confirm that all the magic numbers have their equal and opposite number opposing, but at this point, from past experiments in 2D, I think they will. If the 4 groups of 16 are connected properly, the patterns created by this new arrangement, in the form of a sphere of magic cubes, should match with the 2D, flat form.

4/16/02: In a new drawing, I placed all 4 Levels one above the other in the following order:

1. Level 1 on the bottom.
2. Level 2 over Level 1
3. Level 3 over Level 2
4. Level 4 over Level 3

Sequentially connecting all numbers from 1-64 produced a completely organized bisymmetric, vertical pattern of lines between all 4 Levels. Noted transition points 16/17 and 48/49 representing "brain corpus collosum" transitions between left and right (Arguelles), were found in an alternating fashion as follows: Level 1 (16) to Level 3 (17) and Level 2 (48) to Level 4 (49).

Between the top 2 and the bottom 2 Levels was another crossover of 2 points where all but 2 groups of 4 lines passed through. In other words, all lines but 8 pass through 2 points in the middle of the 4 Levels. This implies, to me, a doubling, a mirror state, a virtual state, a bisymmetry or an elliptic bicentric oscillation rather than a circle of one center.

Further drawings arranged as a sphere, should show the above bisymmetry of a pair of photons, or electrons. I'm not sure which pair we are modeling, (electrons or photons), as we have to model 2 overlapping spheres each with 64 magic squares upon their surface, to understand how the interconnected numbers respond to each other.

### Integrating (4x16) 64 I-Ching Magic Squares with 16 Dydactic Functions:

Binary space is iterative. The fractal process is expressible in 16 dyadic functions. Let's integrate the 16 functions of 0,1 with the 16 x 4 permutations of the I-Ching by transcribing Levels 1,2,3 and 4 to the Table below:

 f0 f1 f2 f3 f4 f5 f6 f7 f8 f9 f10 f11 f12 f13 f14 f15 Level 4: 0(49) 0(15) 0(14) 0(52) 0(12) 0(54) 0(55) 0(9) 1(8) 1(58) 1(59) 1(5) 1(61) 1(3) 1(2) 1(64) Level 3: 0(32) 0(34) 0(35) 0(29) 1(37) 1(27) 1(26) 1(40) 0(41) 0(23) 0(22) 0(44) 1(20) 1(46) 1(47) 1(17) Level 2: 0(48) 0(18) 1(19) 1(45) 0(21) 0(43) 1(42) 1(24) 0(25) 0(39) 1(38) 1(28) 0(36) 0(30) 1(31) 1(33) Level 1: 0(1) 1(63) 0(62) 1(4) 0(60) 1(6) 0(7) 1(57) 0(56) 1(10) 0(11) 1(53) 0(13) 1(51) 0(50) 1(16)

Note: 05/09/05 Level 3, f10: Number 33 corrected to number 22.
07/10/05 Level 2, f4: Number 31 corrected to number 21.

Addenda: Function: [(fn)(p,q)]: Fa(fi,fj) -> fb  fa(fb,fj) -> fc  fa(fc,fj) -> .fn...- outputs are fed as inputs into succeeding functions, until the original function is repeated. Jeremy Horne PhD The Prime Number Cross, Courtesy P. Plictha

### Integrating The Prime Number Cross of P. Plictha, with (4x16) 64 I-Ching Magic Squares and with 16 Dydactic Functions:

(P) denotes all primes from -.
0 and 1 denotes binary "off" and "on"
(C) center of primes designates 6 and all multiples of 6
(2 and 3 are not primes - Plictha).
We should begin with number (P12- Plictha), then 2,3,4 etc.
Should we begin with 0?
If this Table progressed from 0-63 we would have a place for 0.
However, it begins with -.
P65 is prime and is off the Table.
C66 is a center multiple of 6 and is off the Table.

 f0 f1 f2 f3 f4 f5 f6 f7 f8 f9 f10 f11 f12 f13 f14 f15 Level 4: 0(P49) 0(15) 0(14) 0(52) 0(C12) 0(C54) 0(P55) 0(9) 1(8) 1(58) 1(P59) 1(P5) 1(P61) 1(3) 1(2) 1(64) Level 3: 0(32) 0(34) 0(P35) 0(P29) 1(P37) 1(27) 1(26) 1(40) 0(P41) 0(P23) 0(22) 0(44) 1(20) 1(46) 1(P47) 1(P17) Level 2: 0(C48) 0(C18) 1(P19) 1(45) 0(21) 0(P43) 1(C42) 1(C24) 0(P25) 0(39) 1(38) 1(28) 0(C36) 0(C30) 1(31) 1(33) Level 1: 0(P12) 1(63) 0(62) 1(4) 0(C60) 1(C6) 0(P7) 1(57) 0(56) 1(10) 0(P11) 1(P53) 0(P13) 1(51) 0(50) 1(16)

### Unreality: Pairing (1) and (33), (2) and (34), etc in a previous Table of 64 I-Ching

I-Ching Circle

Note: This arrangement demonstrates that the second half (33-64) is similar to the first half (1-32).

 Binary CenterandPrime LinearKuaCount ConcentricLevelfrCenter MovementCode. MovementCode. ConcentricLevelfrCenter LinearKuaCount CenterandPrime Binary 0 (P12) 1 2 SC SG 2 33 (33) 1 1 (2) 2 1 BB BF 1 34 (34) 0 1 (3) 3 8 TC TG 8 35 (P35) 0 1 (4) 4 7 DB DF 7 36 (C36) 0 1 (P5) 5 6 DD DH 6 37 (P37) 1 1 (C6) 6 5 DA DE 5 38 (38) 1 0 (P7) 7 4 DD DH 4 39 (39) 0 1 (8) 8 3 DA DE 3 40 (40) 1 0 (9) 9 3 SB SF 3 41 (P41) 0 1 (10) 10 4 UC UG 4 42 (C42) 1 0 (P11) 11 5 UB UF 5 43 (P43) 0 0 (C12) 12 6 UC UG 6 44 (44) 0 0 (P13) 13 7 UA UE 7 45 (45) 1 0 (14) 14 8 TD TH 8 46 (46) 1 0 (15) 15 1 BA BE 1 47 (P47) 1 1 (16) 16 2 UD UH 2 48 (C48) 0 1 (P17) 17 2 SE SA 2 49 (P49) 0 0 (C18) 18 1 BH BD 1 50 (50) 0 1 (P19) 19 8 TE TA 8 51 (51) 1 1 (20) 20 7 DH DD 7 52 (52) 0 0 (21) 21 6 DF DB 6 53 (P53) 1 0 (22) 22 5 DG DC 5 54 (C54) 0 0 (P23) 23 4 DF DB 4 55 (P55) 0 1 (C24) 24 3 DG DC 3 56 (56) 0 0 (P25) 25 3 SH SD 3 57 (57) 1 1 (26) 26 4 UA UE 4 58 (58) 1 1 (27) 27 5 UH UD 5 59 (P59) 1 1 (28) 28 6 UE UA 6 60 (C60) 0 0 (P29) 29 7 UG UC 7 61 (P61) 1 0 (C30) 30 8 TF TB 8 62 (62) 0 1 (P31) 31 1 BG BC 1 63 (63) 1 0 (32) 32 2 UF UB 2 64 (64) 1

### Reality: Inverse pairing (1) and (64), (2) and (63), etc:

Note: This arrangement demonstrates that the second half (64-33) is exactly the inverse of the first half (1-32).

 Binary CenterandPrime LinearKuaCount ConcentricLevelfrCenter MovementCode. MovementCode. ConcentricLevelfrCenter LinearKuaCount CenterandPrime Binary 0 (P12) 1 2 SC UB 2 64 (64) 1 1 (2) 2 1 BB BC 1 63 (63) 1 1 (3) 3 8 TC TB 8 62 (62) 0 1 (4) 4 7 DB UC 7 61 (P61) 1 1 (P5) 5 6 DD UA 6 60 (C60) 0 1 (C6) 6 5 DA UD 5 59 (P59) 1 0 (P7) 7 4 DD UE 4 58 (58) 1 1 (8) 8 3 DA SD 3 57 (57) 1 0 (9) 9 3 SB DC 3 56 (56) 0 1 (10) 10 4 UC DB 4 55 (P55) 0 0 (P11) 11 5 UB DC 5 54 (C54) 0 0 (C12) 12 6 UC DB 6 53 (P53) 1 0 (P13) 13 7 UA DD 7 52 (52) 0 0 (14) 14 8 TD TA 8 51 (51) 1 0 (15) 15 1 BA BD 1 50 (50) 0 1 (16) 16 2 UD SA 2 49 (P49) 0 1 (P17) 17 2 SE UH 2 48 (C48) 0 0 (C18) 18 1 BH BE 1 47 (P47) 1 1 (P19) 19 8 TE TH 8 46 (46) 1 1 (20) 20 7 DH UE 7 45 (45) 1 0 (21) 21 6 DF UG 6 44 (44) 0 0 (22) 22 5 DG UF 5 43 (P43) 0 0 (P23) 23 4 DF UG 4 42 (C42) 1 1 (C24) 24 3 DG SF 3 41 (P41) 0 0 (P25) 25 3 SH DE 3 40 (40) 1 1 (26) 26 4 UA DH 4 39 (39) 0 1 (27) 27 5 UH DE 5 38 (38) 1 1 (28) 28 6 UE DH 6 37 (P37) 1 0 (P29) 29 7 UG DF 7 36 (C36) 0 0 (C30) 30 8 TF TG 8 35 (P35) 0 1 (P31) 31 1 BG BF 1 34 (34) 0 0 (32) 32 2 UF SG 2 33 (33) 1

Article 04 (PDF)

918 - 840 = 78 = numerologic reduction 9 : 3 : 6
9 + 1 + 8 = 18 = 1 + 8 = 9,
8 + 4 + 0 = 12 = 1 + 2 = 3,
7 + 8 = 15 = 1 + 5 = 6 =
9 : 3 : 6

840 = Half coil helix of superstring.

78 = Enfolded (7+5) polygonal sides.

840 x 2 = 1680 UPA turns of each coil x10.

168 = root edge yods of 6x6 enfolded polygons.

Now, let's switch to Ray Tomes ratios, numerologically reduced:
12 : 24 : 34560
3 : 6 : 9

Mirrored, assuming 9's are the limit:
99 - 12 = 87
99 - 24 = 75
99999 - 34560 = 65439

87 : 75 : 65439
6 : 3 : 9

Let's go back and pick up:
918 - 840 = 78 = numerologic reduction 9 : 3 : 6
9 + 1 + 8 = 18 = 1 + 8 = 9,
8 + 4 + 0 = 12 = 1 + 2 = 3,
7 + 8 = 15 = 1 + 5 = 6 =
9 : 3 : 6

Let's arrange this like the Ray Tomes ratios, numerologically reduced:
78 : 840 : 918
7 + 8 = 15 = 1 + 5 = 6,
8 + 4 + 0 = 12 = 1 + 2 = 3,
9 + 1 + 8 = 18 = 1 + 8 = 9
6 : 3 : 9

Mirrored, assuming 9's are the limit:
99 - 78 = 21
999 - 840 = 159
999 - 918 = 81

21 : 159 : 81
2 + 1 = 3,
1 + 5 + 9 = 15 = 1 + 5 = 6,
8 + 1 = 9
3 : 6 : 9

### Douglass A. White Discovers Similar Ratios

Part 2: Dirac's Equation and the Sea of Negative Energy by D.L. Hotson

Neutrosynthesis

We might say that the Dirac equation, by having only four roots, predicts that everything else, including the neutron, must be made of electrons and positrons. How many epos (epo = electron-positron pair) make a neutron? The question is far from trivial. The answer can not be 919, the mass ratio between epo and neutron. There would be 919 x 2 like charges packed into a tiny space. The binding energy would have to be 80 or 90%, to hold such an aggregation together, even if it were mostly "charge condensed." So 919 epos would mass, at most, about 370 electron masses. We might keep in mind the Pauli exclusion principle, which regulates how many electrons may occupy a given shell in an atom by the possible number of different vibrational modes (different quantum numbers).

### White's Intuitive, Irrational Logic

We have seen earlier that for reasons of symmetry the universe must have ten dimensions, six of them (the negative energy realm of the BEC) in "imaginary" directions with respect to our four (Dirac, 1963; Sirag, 1977b, 2000). How many different ways can an electron or positron vibrate in ten dimensions? We might answer that by an analogy with the periodic table.

### The Periodic Table/10 Dimension Analogy

Each electron shell contains the number of electrons that can vibrate in different ways. (The electron's quantum numbers.) At present, the periodic table consists of 100 elements in eight complete shells (if you count the rare earth elements) with 16 or so elements in an incomplete ninth shell. (Element 118 was claimed to have been synthesized at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in 1999, but they have recently retracted that claim [Gorman, 2001].)

### The Same 10 Vertical Levels of the Periodic Table:

0.8 Lambda

The Lambdoma Mandalas, 16 x 16, found at the bottom of the page, at Barbara Hero's website has interesting patterns similar to the Galaxy Pattern called the Periodic Table as Concentric Rings of 16 of the following site: Periodic Table

The Periodic Table as Concentric Rings of 16, having 10 levels, also seem to be connected to the 10D Theory of the following site called 10 Dimensional Torque and Consciousness: Virtual Chaos

(Note: The Periodic Table shows 10 vertical levels wherein elements are placed. These levels are to be evaluated as to why there are 10 corresponding to 10d Theory. Also, the red elements shown in the Concentric Rings Theory are the monoatomic elements, superconducting, in this linear sequence: Co, Rh, Ir, Pt, Pd, Ni, Cu, Ag, Au and Hg......This pattern matches the pattern of growth of the Concentric Rings Theory. Who can foresee the benefits of a superconducting, levitating, monoatomic metal?

Since the Lamdoma, Galaxy Pattern, and the above 10D Torus shape represent spherical systems, here is the site of the

Periodic Table of Elements in circular format  By Sean D. Birkel.

Completing that shell would give 118 elements, and a tenth complete shell would add another 18, for a total of 136. So if elements were stable to atomic number 136, element 136 would be a noble gas with 136 electrons in 10 complete shells. This means that there are 136 different ways for electrons to vibrate in 10 shells. Each of these shells amounts to an additional degree of freedom for the vibrating electron. If we substitute 10 degrees of freedom, or dimensions, for these 10 shells, it seems inescapable that there again would be 136 different ways for electrons to vibrate in 10 dimensions.

100 elements in 8 shells, 118 elements in 10 shells for a total of 136 elements = 136 ways electrons vibrate in 10 dimensions. Is this logic. Is the atomic levels logical?

These numbers figure prominently in one of the possible designs for a neutron made of electron-positron pairs. This model was largely suggested by SaulPaul Sirag (1977a) as a "combinatorial" model of the proton. He, however, considered it mere number-juggling. The last time I talked to him, he was no longer interested in it, so I "pirate it" without scruple. With a few minor additions and changes, it turns out to be a plausible model of the neutron.

### Eddington's Attempt

. . . From Eddington's group theoretical point of view, creatures to whom spacetime has four dimensions will find algebraic structures having 10 elements and 136 elements playing a very fundamental role. Eddington attempted, unsuccessfully, to derive the proton-electron mass ratio from the two numbers 10 and 136, together with the number of unity, 1. . . Eddington's 1, 10, and 136 are members of a wellknown mathematical series that goes 1, 10, 45, 136, 325. . .etc. . .The next number in that series is 666. (Sirag, 1977b).

### Eddington's Maths Agree with Dirac and Einstein's GR

Eddington's series is (n 2 )(n 2 + 1)/2, n = 1, 2, 3, etc. As Sirag points out, this group theoretical point of view accords with Dirac's above statement that four dimensional symmetry requires ten dimensions of curvature, or degrees of freedom, in General Relativity (Dirac, 1963).

String and Superstring Theories Require Space of 10 dimensions

Several of the string and superstring theories also require a space of ten dimensions (Sirag, 2000), and as we saw, an electron can vibrate in 136 different ways in ten dimensions. If we order these 136 vibrational modes two at a time one for electron, one for positron (as in the epo) this would give 136 x 135, or 18,360 different ways for a lepton, joined as an epo, to vibrate in 10 dimensions. (This is Sirag's computation, but he lacked the idea of electron-positron pairs. He ordered them two at a time ". . .e.g., one for proton, one for electron. . .")

135 x 136 = 18,360 ways a lepton vibrates in 10 dimensions

Thus a combination of 9180 electron-positron pairs would be a very stable arrangement, filling all of the possible vibrational modes in ten dimensions. We might imagine them arrayed in a 10 dimensional vortex or "hypersphere."

18,360 / 2 = 9180 epo (electron-positron pairs).
9180 = 918 x 10.

### The BEC Connection

(Note that this arrangement would come about in the negative energy BEC. As is well known, the only way that a BEC can rotate is in a vortex.) Moreover, Krisch (1987) has shown that colliding protons act like little vortices, shoving each other around preferentially in their spin directions. What would be the mass of such an aggregation? Well, in quantum theory, one measures the energy, or mass, by taking the temporal sine attribute of the Y wave. Since time is only one of the 10 dimensions, this would give the aggregation a mass of 18360/10, or 1836 electronmasses. Since it is composed of 9180 electron-positron pairs, such an entity would have 0 charge: it would be neutral.

..."measures the energy, or mass.....taking the temporal sine attribute of the Y wave. Since time is only one of the 10 dimensions, this would give the aggregation a mass of 18360/10, or 1836 electronmasses".

All symmetries are conserved in this arrangement, with exactly equal amounts of matter and antimatter. There is no reason why such an entity might not be produced, and expelled from the BEC (thrust into "our reality") whenever the random fluctuations of the BEC produced a positive energy of 1836 electronmasses, and spin energy in all ten dimensions. (The suggestion is that it would be produced in a vorticular "storm" in the BEC, which would have spin energy in all ten dimensions.) Moreover, since it has only 10% positive energy and 90% negative or "binding" energy, such an entity would be stable despite packing 9180 charges of like polarity into a very small hyperspace. This is the Sirag model of the nucleon, slightly modified. Note that in our BEC of unlimited density, there is already an electron and a positron in exactly the positions required for this synthesis (nothing needs to move), so only the positive energy and the spin is required to produce a neutron.

We now have the added problem of wondering if perfectly balanced amounts of matter-antimatter is not the rule. According to the neutrino's basic makeup, as Harold tells it, it is made of B. Fuller asymmetric, unbalanced AAB-ABB mite type parts in a formulae, 3/2 x 2/3 = 1 quantum, discussed by Harold. As we know already, this neutrino may be called several other basic building block names such as the Anu, the smallest unit of creation. The Anu is associated with a formulae in a 5/7 ratio: PHI = 7 / 5 PI / e.

Moreover, some 90% of the epos that make up the "Sirag model" have 0 spin, being pure one-dimensional vibrations in imaginary directions. The remaining 10% share "real" angular momentum, mostly canceling, which must, overall, amount to spin 1/2. But as this is a "real" spin, there is nothing to say that a "real" extended neutron with the large "real" mass of some eye is not "really" spinning with a "real" angular momentum of 1/2. In order to obey FermiDirac statistics, it must have this half-integer angular momentum, but it is not necessary to assign that spin to an individual electron or epo constituent when it can simply be a property of the extended neutron itself.

Further On, White Finds 918, Again.

### The Strong Nuclear Force

However, the prime merit of this model has to be its representation of the strong nuclear force. Here we need to note a strange coincidence: the mass of the proton, in electronmasses, is roughly the same as the strength of the proton's strong force, in electron-forces. (Mass of proton: 1836 electron masses. Strength of the electromagnetic force: the "fine structure constant" a = e^2 /hc = 1/137; strength of strong force: g^2 /hc = ~15. Ratio: ~15 x 137, somewhere around 2000 [Shankar, 1994].)

Thus the ratios of the masses and of the forces are roughly the same, "around 2000." This is a major clue to the nature of the "strong force." Gravitation and the Coulomb force both have simple inverse square "shapes" that operate over long distances.

Theoretically, at least, they never drop to zero. However, the shape of the strong force between nucleons is radically different and very peculiar. Up to a distance of around a fermi (10 15 m.), it is very strongly repulsive, keeping the nucleons apart. Then, for no apparent good reason, it changes abruptly to very strongly attractive, then drops off very rapidly, so that at a distance of around three fermi's it becomes immeasurable. This peculiar shape has never been successfully modeled by any theory. Note how current theory, in which the fudge is an accepted scientific procedure, "solves" this problem. Since current theory can't model this observed force, it simply ignores it, and instead invents (fudges) an unobserved (fifth!) force carried by eight "gluons" (designed to be unobservable) between eighteen or thirtysix "quarks" (also designed to be unobservable) inside the nucleon. It then "suggests" that this fudged gluon force in some unspecified way "leaks out" of the nucleon to make up the peculiar shape of the measured strong force. However, our "epo model" of the nucleon models this very peculiar shape simply and intuitively. Because of the uncertainty principle, the nucleon, with its measured diameter of around 1.9 fermi's, can not be a perfect sphere, but must be a pulsating spheroid.

However, the epos that make it up have "asymptotic freedom"Ńthey vibrate individually, and each lepton is free to form a relationship with any available antiparticle. This means that, as two nucleons approach each other, at a distance of about three fermi's, electron positron pairs will begin to form, not just within the nucleons, but between them. (Pairs of "internucleon" epos would have to form at the same time, keeping the total number of paired charges in each nucleon at 9180.) This would cause a strong, shortrange attraction between the nucleons as more and more pairs formed. This would increase to a maximum at around 1.5 fermi's, after which it would rapidly turn into a strong repulsion (since the individual epos have to maintain their average 1.87 fermi separation), keeping the nucleons a stable distance from each other.

Moreover, a maximum of 918 such "internucleon" pairs could form, the number vibrating in the direction joining the two nucleons, one-tenth of the total. This would give the interaction the strength of 1836e, and exactly explain the strength of the strong force, "about 2000 times as strong as the Coulomb force" (Shankar, 1994).

Now, what is the chance that a completely wrong model of the nucleon would exactly match both the strength and the very peculiar shape of this most individual of forces? After fifty or so years of effort, the huge physics establishment admittedly has failed utterly to provide a model that comes close to matching that peculiar shape of the nuclear force. Yet Dirac's equation provides a model that fits like lock and key.

### Conclusions

What do you make of 918 photons per electron or 918 "internucleon pairs" both being 1/10th of the 9180 charges of Sirac? What does the strange equation mean when we divide 918 by the infamous demonic number 666, the end of Sirac's series, which just happens to also represent 53 cycles of musical 5ths, giving us a fractal of the fine-structure number 137? Why does 918 photons or 918 internucleon pairs, when divided by the, seemingly unrelated, number of kua of the famous I-Ching, number 64, and after multiplying the resulting factor by the 7th and 8th power, gives both 918 and 1836, again, both being the number of photons per electron, 918, or "internucleon pairs", 918, and the electron-proton mass ratio, 1836?

When two "nucleons approach each other, at a distance of about three fermi's, electron positron pairs will begin to form, not just within the nucleons, but between them, causing a strong, shortrange attraction between the nucleons as more and more pairs formed. This would increase to a maximum at around 1.5 fermi's, after which it would rapidly turn into a strong repulsion (since the individual epos have to maintain their average 1.87 fermi separation), keeping the nucleons a stable distance from each other."

Is it dawning on you that at the centers of these electron-positron pairs exist double-center ellipses, where the strong force oscillates a strong attraction and a strong repulsion, both at the same time, in two Anu vortexes?

Strange, but intuitive, goings-on. Perhaps we will never understand how to deal with these "coincidences" as long as we don't catch on that there is a SuperScience here, of BEC space, that crosses all borders.

Impossible Correspondence Index