All of fractals comes from the central idea in physics that the small
and large are all atoms,
same as self-similarity.

When Democritus in ancient Greek times said " the only things
existing, are atoms",
he really meant it. If you believe it, then logic says the totality is
one big atom. So if
only atoms exist, then the Universe is both self similar and size
makes no difference.

I've also gotten some arguably interesting results tying in related 2
or 1/2 ratios and also 0.43 to 0.488 ratios in my last few posts in my
Quantum Gravity thread.

Osher Doctorow

On Jul 30, 9:30 pm, Archimedes Plutonium

Just a note: Democritus, Discrete Scale Relativity, and any natural
philosopher worth his salt knows that nature's discrete self-similar
hierarchy is unbounded, i.e., infinite.

Therefore there cannot be a "largest atom" and it is incorrect to say
that the Universe is an atom.  If you go looking for the "uber-atom"
you are on a fool's errand because the sequence of ever-larger atoms
is infinite and does not end.

If you want to say that there are an infinite number self-similar
atoms that differ in discrete size scales ( ..., Atomic Scale atoms,
Stellar Scale atoms, Galactic Scale atoms,..., that would appear to be
more defendable.

Did you know, Robert, that no mathematician ever well defined what he
meant by
finite-number versus infinite-number. And left it up to each and
everyone to make up
their own personal definition. Talk about walking away from the prime
job of mathematics--
to well define.

So what is the true concept of infinity, when someone really puts some
effort into
a well-defined definition? It would have to come from physics and a
concept of "never ending"
is not a physical concept is it? What is in physics is that you reach
a point where you no longer are able to count in the large or measure
in the small, or go colder in the cold or go
hotter in the heat.

So Physics would say that Infinity is not these ghost or green dragon
of endlessness, just as
absolute time is a ghost or fluida as electricity a fluid is a ghost.
But Physics would say that
if we can no longer measure, or count or divide, then we reached
"infinity"

So a better definition of infinity is that at which Physics no longer
is able to measure or experiment, or where a force ends such as Strong-
Nuclear ends at nucleons of 253. It occurs in the large at 10^500 and
in the small at 10^-500 (probably occurs earlier than 10^-500 for the
small).

So, Robert, I suspect you have endorsed a concept of "infinity" with
out ever really thinking
hard and long about what infinity means. You assumed what it means,
just as Newton assumed absolute time.

If there is no more physics, since there is no more strongnuclear
force at 253! for elements
beyond 100, if there is no more physics, then the concept of infinity
ends there also. If Physics is gone at 253! then there surely is no
biology of people doing any mathematics.

So to a physicist who wants well-defined concepts, not some shoddy
concept that is taken for granted, would say that 10^500 is infinity.

And so you have a largest atom.

Sorry, Robert, but you never well-defined "what is infinity".

Infinity is nothing magical. It is where Physics no longer exists.

It is where the Strong-Nuclear force no longer exists and that is
about 253!
of the Coulomb Interactions inside a nucleus.

WELL DEFINED Infinity : Infinity is where Physics ends in measuring,
experimenting or
where a force of physics ends.

I am afraid, Robert, that as Newton succumbed to a misconception of
Space and Time
in his physics, that you, Robert succumbed to a shoddy idea of what is
meant by
infinity. As if Infinity is more powerful as a philosophy idealogue,
than all of Physics.

I look at it the other way around, that we have zillions of silly
philosophers with zillions
of poor ideas and infinity as "never ending" is one of the classical
shoddy silly ideas.

Sure many fell prey to Fluidia as the electric juice or fluid and to
the Phlogiston as heat as a fluid. So many fell prey to those shoddy
ideas, probably because philosophers entered where
wise men feared to tread.

But now in our century, we finally release the philosophers and
mathematicians of their shoddy notion around "infinity" and set
infinity on its
true path. Infinity means the end of doing Physics and thus is about
10^500. Infinity is the boundary at which Phsyics no longer is
physics.

So, Robert, please help physics, not hinder physics from the silly
philosophers and mathematicians who have this ultra-idealism of what
everything means. Even their
twirling of hair-locks in their ivory towers while sipping coffee.

I have a theory-- the Universe is one big atom, and thus your fractals
is a incidental side aspect of that theory. Atom Totality can produce
all of fractals, but fractals can not yield the
Atom Totality theory.

If your only objection to Atom Totality is "infinity", well, you never
really defined infinity to any
standard of good physics. You accepted and assumed the common notion
of "endlessness".

And if that is your only objection to the Atom Totality, then you have
no real objection. Notice how in Quantum Electrodynamics, by
renormalizing they get rid of the nuisance infinities. All of physics
should be getting rid of infinities of numbers larger than 10^500. But
to think that if Physics is no longer physics at 253! of
strongnuclear, why would any physicist
embrace silly mathematicians with their idea of endlessness, as if
anything can be counted
beyond 10^500 or that a world exists where you have a biology of
intelligent life to even have mathematics.

Remember, you have to have Phsyics to have biology and to have
mathematics is much further down the line. So why would anyone trumpet
mathematics with its silly notion of "endless" when physics puts
infinity at 10^500.

Well, Galileo knew the basic properties of countable infinities.

Then Cantor developed the subject into rigorous mathematical theory.

To me the idea of truncating nature's hierarchy is repugnant, and the
desire to do so is most likely due to a lack of courage and an
anthropocentric prejudice.

Is the concept of the Metagalactic Scale "atom" undergoing a
catastrophic nuclear decay event causing complete ionization of the
"atomic" structure not a good enough model for the Big Bang? It is the
local [observable universe] that went Bang, not the global [Universe],
which is infinite and eternal.

So here we see, Robert, that in order to have infinity, a boundary
must be set where
below is finite and above is infinite.

Now thanks, Robert, because I never went down this path before.
Perhaps the Universe need not go out beyond say Element 114 Atom
Totality. Perhaps the Cosmos recycles back to a Hydrogen or Helium
Atom Totality after 114. So is there something in QM of a recycling
mode that matches that scenario?
A universal cycling mode? Is not that what the laws of Thermodynamics
tend for? Is not the
2nd law a universal recycling mode? That there is no recycling mode in
fractals, when there should be a recycling mode.
Maybe that is the deepest and profoundest meaning of the universe---
constant recycling. Maybe that is the ultimate truth that philosophers
seek-- recycling. We recycle plastics and paper, and there is a water
cycle and a oxygen to carbon dioxide recycling, so why not have a
recycling of the Universe? Is there anything other than atoms that are
recycleable on a cosmic scale?

I don't notice the Maxwell Equations as a recycleable scheme. Of
course the wave in particle
wave duality is a recycling scheme. And so is Thermodynamics the
recycling unit of physics.

A physical hierarchy of actual systems, such as the discrete self-
similar organization of nature into ..., subquantum systems, atomic
systems, stellar systems, galactic systems, metagalactic
systems, ... , need not have a "bottom" or a "top".

Further, I would argue that capping off nature's hierarchy with a
"top" or a "bottom" is an act of desecration that has no empirical or
theoretical justification.

So let me move on and what better place than to well define, precision
define a much
tougher concept. And this concept has never really been given a
acceptable definition
for we see strife within biology as to whether viruses are living or
nonliving. So the concept
of life versus nonlife is what I am aiming at for the moment. Whether
I achieve any sort
of progress or success will remain to be seen. I always go into these
projects with a gloomy
success forecast, but seem to always emerge with some sort of victory.

Let me see if I can precision define Life versus NonLife. What gives
me some advantage
over all past such projects is that I have the Atom Totality theory
with the latest in
quantum-mechanics.

Let me just dive into the middle of the problem.

Imagine three reproduction chambers as three separate experiments. In
one chamber is
of course one celled living creatures and multicelled creatures
reproducing to make more
new life. In the second chamber is atoms of physics that are bombarded
with energy and also
chemical solutions in vats where chemicals are added and reactions
take place. In the third chamber are all sorts of computers and
artists drawing fractals, making small fractals larger or some making
small fractals even smaller and all sorts of different shaped
fractals.

Now the reason I have these three chambers is to refer to them to
guide me on as to whether
I am making a precision definition of Live vs. Nonlife.

Now if my memory is correct, the very best that the biology community
can come up with on
a precision definition of Life vs. Nonlife is that it embodies four
main aspects:
(a) is a closed geometrical shaped object
(b) takes in energy from outside of its body
(c) reproduces itself
(d) has motion

Now it would be nice if there was only one distinction between life
and nonlife rather than
requiring four distinctions that separates whether something is alive
or nonliving.

Now let me briefly check how much a fractal from the fractal chamber
follows those four
requirements: It surely is a closed geometrical shaped object because
the artist when finishing one fractal moves to the same one that is
larger or smaller version of itself. It surely takes in energy from
the environment as the artist or computer is required to draw the next
fractal. But fails for self reproduction because it needs the artist
or computer aids and also
has no motion.

Now the atom chamber or chemical mixing chamber fails at reproducing
itself. But fails by
not very much of a failing. I mean that we can construe a experiment
where we have
hydrogen atoms bombarded with some energy and for which some of that
energy converts
into more hydrogen atoms so we have an increase in hydrogen atoms
overall, due to the
energy bombardment from the outside. So in a sense, a real sense, it
is going to be extremely
difficult to say those hydrogen atoms are nonliving.

Now there is one idea that may help at this juncture. A feature about
life that is very difficult to
realize in any sort of nonliving system. I speak of the idea that all
life on Earth was like a baton carried back through time of a
continuous path of living creatures in order for each and every one of
us to be alive today. Let me call it a chain of continuity of life.
Where I can trace back my cells that only stops when I reach some
ancient primitive first cells on Earth.

This chain of continuity cannot be existing in the fractal chamber.
Can this chain of continuity
be somehow existing in the atom or chemical chamber? Now if the atom
chamber had elements of bismuth, and all those bismuth atoms were
built step by step adding protons to initial hydrogen atoms, and if we
take one bismuth atom we can make a chain of continuity of each of
those 83 protons having so to speak ancestors of an aufbau principle
buildup, much like each one of us can trace our history back to the
first living organisms on Earth.

But the chain of continuity is choppy in the atom chamber. The chain
of continuity is very much continuous in the life-chamber. And this is
where, also, we finally iron out the question of viruses. Because in
the Chain of Continuity of life, as we go back in time we also
encounter the first virus of a specific virus and thus viruses are
part and parcel of that same
chain of continuity. Thus, viruses are alive.

Not bad progress for the first stab attempt. I feel that the essential
ingredient of whether something is alive or not-alive is that it is a
member of a Chain of Continuity. But the distinction is not a very
sharp distinction over atoms bombarded with energy.

What I am doing is fishing for the key defining concept. It looks as
though the idea of
continuity is essential, and a long history or long chain of
continuity. Because one can say that starting with a single hydrogen
atom and bombarding it with energy so that it grows into
become a bismuth atom in the end, that one can say it was a chain of
continuity. But a difference here with life is that when I place
another bismuth atom alongside the "grown bismuth atom" that they have
no past history in common. Whereas if I put a person alongside
a sea anemone, that if I go back far enough in past history they are
ancestors of one another and are thus linked. It is called a web of
life. So maybe the important key concept that distinguishes living
from nonliving, is that if you go back far enough in time the living
is still
linked to other bodies but the nonliving had been severed of any
links.

Now of course, in the Atom Totality, the above would be in trouble
because the present day Plutonium Atom Totality has links all the way
back to the beginning whether it is 14 billion years ago or 200
billion years ago as each Atom Totality was created by a former Atom
Totality. So this precision definition already is far more difficult
than anyone could first imagine. So are we to say that life is not
confined to biology but that physical objects such as
atoms are living entities? It may just well turn out that living is a
duality to nonliving and so we
can never have a precision definition but only state that living is
dual to nonliving.

Say for instance, all living bodies in the Cosmos have to be no
smaller than a virus
and no larger than the largest organism ever lived? I suppose that is
some tree.

And this in itself raises a fascinating question of what is the median
or "average"
size if the extremes of life are a virus and a large tree? And then,
is there a corresponding
analog in physics of this median size? How about the size of galaxies,
does it follow
this median for virus versus tree. I suppose fractal researchers can
add to this question.

A pinpointing of a boundary of size for biology would disclude the
Atom Totality as living and as a topic for biology.

But the above also raises the reverse question of whether finite is
the duality of infinity and
that they can never be precisely defined. But that sort of answers
itself since by
saying 10^500 is infinity, we have precisely defined infinity and thus
the finite versus
infinite is not a duality relationship.

To make mathematics precise and well-defined of finite-number versus
infinite-number, needs
only one small fantastic trick. Set down a boundary line where above
is infinity and below is
finite. Here we use Physics to set that boundary, because where
Physics ends, so does numbers and mathematics comes to an end. The
largest meaningful number in Physics is the Planck Unit where there no
longer is a Strong Nuclear Force to exist, and this is at nucleons
of 253, or 253! = 10^500. This is around element 100. There!! Well
done to make a well-defined, precision definition of finite number
versus infinite number.

Now what have I gotten into with a new adventure of trying to
precision, well-define Life versus
Nonlife? Admittedly a much tougher and harder thing to make precise.
However, there is a feature of the Atom Totality theory that places a
very sharp difference between what is living and what is nonliving. It
comes from the John Bell Inequality with the Experiments that proved
this inequality to be true, in other words, the Universe is run by
quantum mechanics, both for the small microworld or the largest of
macroworld. In order for the Cosmos to be having a Bell Inequality,
means the Cosmos must have a "control center" so that when signal A
clear across the Cosmos from signal B is changed causing A to change
instantly, needs a Cosmic control center, which is the Nucleus of the
Atom Totality. John Bell called this concept "superdeterminism".

To make a long story short.

To precision define Life from NonLife when the Cosmos is an Atom
Totality with a nucleus as
control center, then all life must act as to how the Nucleus forces
that plant or animal to act.
This is done by shooting photons or neutrinos into the brain of a
plant or animal, called the Brain Locus, which may consist of a single
atom. The shot photon then is received by the Brain Locus much like a
radio receives a signal from a broadcaster. The photon then tells the
living organism what actions are to be carried out.

So here we have a precision definition of what is Living and
Nonliving. A living entity has a brain locus receiving signals from
the Nucleus of the Atom Totality. A nonliving entity such as
a rock or cup of water just follows the laws and theories of physics
and has no brain locus of
incoming signals. A brain locus is the mind of an organism and all
living creatures from viruses
to trees to animals have a brain locus and thus a mind.

The brain locus is probably a single atom surrounded by other atoms
but the single atom is the
radio antennae of the mind and processes the shot photon or neutrino.

It is the reason that all animals need to sleep, as sleep is a
refocusing of the brain locus atom. Just like a radio needs to be
"tuned". So sleep is another word for "tuning the mind".

So that rocks and water and air have no need for a brain locus since
the natural laws of physics will superdetermine their position and
momentum at any given time. But as for
living creatures, to have them superdetermined, requires absolute
control over every thought
and action and response by the Atom Totality, and that is achieved via
a Brain Locus.

So the precision definition of Life or Living versus NonLife or
Nonliving, is that all life
has a brain-locus. All Nonliving things have no brain locus.

That is a very precise and well defined definition of what it means to
be living. It means, the
organism is in direct control by the Nucleus of an Atom Totality.

How about a tree seed? Is that living? Well it must have a brain-locus
to be living. Now if I cut
off a piece of my skin, it is alive but it has no brain locus and will
quickly become "dead matter". And a tree seed; is it like the cutoff
piece of skin or is it like an organism that has a brain and thus a
brain locus? Well, actually a seed like a virus needs alot of
instructions at all times. So a seed as well as a virus contain a
brain locus already in place, and receiving instructions from the
Nucleus of the Atom Totality such as when to germinate, or for the
virus, when to move one of its viral-appendages.

Now some may wonder how a tree thinks with its brain locus? And that
is a good question, but
keep in mind that a tree has to come to many decisions as to when to
start dropping leaves or
mount a counterresponse on fungus or insect pests.

So here I have found some success in a narrow well defined, precision
definition. Life, all life
has a brain locus, a radio receiver from instructions from the Nucleus
of the Atom Totality.

Now this would mean that the Atom Totality is a hierarchy above that
of living versus nonliving.
The Atom Totality is above life for it makes life possible.

In the next posts, let me compare the precision of finite versus
infinite as 10^500 with the idea that the precision of life versus
nonlife is a brain-locus. I do not know if there is any comparison to
make, other than both are sharp definitions. And let me drop the
newsgroup sci.fractals since it is no longer relevant.

Now I defer to what a biological Radio receiver may look like in terms
of a few atoms
or molecules to compose a radio receiver. Is it a hexagonal shaped
molecule? Does lithium
have something to do with a Brain Locus for humans since it is a
mental illness treatment?
When schizophrenics hear voices, is it because the brain locus has
become interrupted, sort
of like a radio station interference with another station.

And I would respond that I am defining life with precision over the
entire Universe, not
just here on Earth. We have no idea as to whether all planets with
life have to be DNA/RNA
based lifeforms.

So if I take this list of characteristics of life:
(a) is a closed geometrical shaped object
(b) takes in energy from outside of its body
(c) reproduces itself
(d) has motion
(e) has either DNA/RNA

That list would surely eliminate the atoms fissioning as atoms fit
a,b,c,d above except
fails to fit (e). But (e) is confined to Earth. So that one can see
that atoms are a close contender for "living" yet all of us consider
atoms as inanimate lifeless objects when
not part of a living body.

So that above list from a to e, is about the best that biology can do
for defining life versus
nonlife. The above is not precise enough and makes one consider a long
list of characteristics
that seem to fit for atoms fissioning as well as biological creatures.

So this is where my definition is superior, for it is universal and
matters not whether a planet is based on DNA/RNA or some other genetic
bases.

Life: a living object must have a brain locus.
Nonlife: a nonliving object has no brain locus.

That is my precision definition and is universal. It comes from Bell
Inequality that quantum mechanics is on the large scale and ushers in
superdeterminism. And to have superdeterminism every living object
must be directly controlled by the Atom Totality Nucleus, and that is
done via a brain-locus that forms every mind of every living object,
regardless of
whether it is DNA based or based on some other genetics.

Now I do not know what a brain-locus will be discovered as. Will it be
a small molecule?
Will its geometry be a hexagonal shaped molecule? Does lithium play a
essential part of a
brain-locus? Here I would need experts in making radios. Making a
radio out of a living body.
I would assume the brain locus is located in the brain. If it were
located in the eye, there are
many living creatures with their eyes removed that did not have a loss
of thinking or lose their mind. But when their head is cut off, no
longer does a mind exist.

I do not know what the smallest radio, made out of living tissue would
look like? Can it be a simple molecule? But perhaps it needs to be
much more than a simple molecule, considering
how much sleep is required by humans who have to sleep 1/3 of their
life to tune or focus the
brain-locus each and every day.

Now the rest of the brain which is large in comparison to the brain-
locus is merely the execution of what the brain locus has ordered up.
Much like a boss of a factory surrounded by thousands of workers all
commanded by the boss to perform tasks. So the brain locus receives
messages by photons shot by the Nucleus of the Atom Totality, and the
execution of those orders are performed by the rest of the brain
matter.

So now we can see that Nonliving objects would under superdeterminism
simply follow the laws of physics, but that Living objects need to be
more controlled by the Atom Totality and
would have a brain-locus and thus a mind.

Now I expect any day that someone in the medical profession or the
biology sciences to remove a tiny portion of a brain from some animal
to find the animal no longer can think
properly.

Now in the heyday of lobotomies, especially here in the USA, the tools
of a long rod that
scrambled around some brain matter would not have removed the brain-
locus but would have
scrambled it around so badly that it would be akin to jarring the
crystal from a radio set out of
place. And it would take a patient who was lobotomized a long time to
recover. Now I believe
the historical record of lobotomies showed a good number of patients
who seemed to have
"lost their minds completely." And in those cases, I would suspect
that the brain locus had
been moved or damaged. I do not know if anyone kept detailed records
of lobotomies.

Now I hope, sincerely, that the Brain Locus theory is not proven true
before the Atom Totality
theory is proven true. But this never occurred to me before, that I
maybe in a funny situation
that science of biology discovers the Brain Locus of animals and
proves it true, whilst still
the astronomy and physics communities not taking the Atom Totality
serious enough.

And I never thought of it that way, that if biologists prove the Brain
Locus theory true, that it would be the biologists who prove the
astronomy and physics theory of how the Universe
was made. Just think of that for a moment, where the biologists do the
job of the astronomers and physicists, for which they were derelict of
their job.

So, just think of that for a moment, that the proof of the Universe as
one big atom, is proven
by the fact that animals have radios for a mind. The ironies of
science just seem to go on
to 10^500.

Now, one more fascinating idea. What if the Brain Locus is the DNA
molecule? Then the molecule is a radio and is contained in all the
body's cells. Is a double helix acting like a
radio?

--- quoting Wikipedia ---
The amount of total genomic DNA varies widely between organisms, and
the proportion of coding and noncoding DNA within these genomes varies
greatly as well. More than 98% of the human genome does not encode
protein sequences, including most sequences within introns and most
intergenic DNA.[1]
--- end quoting ---

Now let us ask how much of a radio would be so called "junk", that is,
how much of the
radio is just the hardware that supports the functioning of the radio?
Or we could ask the same question about the cellphone, as to how much
hardware is minimally needed to house the cellphone?  I think the
answer would be that for a radio or cellphone that over 90% is housing
hardware to hold the radio or cellphone as a "box container".

Now the nice thing about having DNA as the brain locus radio receiver
is that it is nearby to where the genetics is involved. So that if the
Atom Totality Nucleus wants a mutation, or wants a cancer or disease,
it just is right there in the heredity location.

So let me ask the simple question, is the configuration of DNA/RNA
that of a miniature biological radio receiver? Maybe I should post
this to a sci.electronics newsgroup.

Now the nice thing also, about DNA being the brain-locus is that if
one is the active brain locus and should somehow fail, that another
DNA molecule nearby can become the new brain locus.

And perhaps the acting brain locus has some special atoms around it,
say perhaps lithium for animals, or perhaps molybdenum for plants.

And also, a brain locus theory fits quite nicely with alot of disease
explanations, in that lithium
provides relief to mental illness and depression seems to be
alleviated by electroshock treatment. Also, I have heard that when
someone is confined to a dark and metal enclosure, that their brain
functions less.

If you recall in the Continental Drift theory, the first thing to stir
Wegener's mind was the
jigsaw puzzle fit of Africa west coast into that of the South American
east coast. But later
on, what was unfolding was that the plants and animals of Africa and
South America were
so related that they must have been joined in the past. So that
biology evidence of Continental
Drift was mounting in favor of the theory.

Likewise for the Atom Totality theory, in that biology is going to
have a huge say as to whether
Atom Totality is true or false. A huge say, far more compelling than
what biology was for
Continental Drift. This is because, in quantum mechanics we have the
Bell Inequality with its
"superdeterminism" conclusion. So unlike the Continental Drift theory
where biology had a supporting role, here in the Atom Totality theory,
biology can actually prove or disprove the theory outright. In order
for there to be superdeterminism of the Bell Inequality, there cannot
be
free-will in biology. Free-will is contradictory to superdeterminism.

So the moment that biology researchers discover and prove that a
organism has a brain-locus
radio receiver and that living creatures have a brain-locus, is as
good of a final proof of the Atom Totatlity, as if the astronomers and
physicists sighted the Nucleus of the Atom Totality.

So, unlike the Continental Drift theory where biology played a
supporting evidence role, but not a proving-role, here in Atom
Totality theory, biology can actually prove outright whether it is
true or false. The biologists could beat the physicists in a race to
the finish on what the true
Cosmology theory of the world is.

Here are two websites that discuss on how to build a primitive crystal
radio:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_radio

http://scitoys.com/scitoys/scitoys/radio/radio.html#crystal

And the DNA, accumulative is discrete in the cells of the body, so
being separated
does that matter as far as acting like an antennae?

I was looking on the web for any discussion of a neutrino radio and
found this site of a
New Scientist article of recent:

--- quoting two snippets from ---
http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-amp-space/article/2009-08/rad...

The problem is that neutrinos are so small that 50 trillion neutrinos
pass through each person every second without interacting with a
single atom in anyone's body.
.
.
When a neutrino does strike part of the Moon, it gives off a
nanosecond-long radio-wave burst. By recording those waves, radio
telescopes can turn the Moon into the largest neutrino detector in
history.
--- end quoting two snippets from ---

It seems to me to be a far more simple and orderly universe if the
brain locus that controls all
living creatures for superdeterminism, that a neutrino would be far
better suited to that task.

And if that is correct, then we can safely say that the neutrino is
the spark of life or the biology particle of physics.

And let us say that for each biological living individual that the
brain would have to have
coded messages.

And let us further stipulate that since a neutrino has rest mass,
albeit a tiny one, that it
is coded messages when stopped. And perhaps that is the reason that
neutrinos have and
must have a tiny rest mass in order to be coded. So that the
difference between a neutrino
and photon is that the neutrino is a coded-photon.

This implies that brain locus would have to be neutrino based brain-
locus.

I do not remember who it was that remarked when the neutrino was first
discovered,
remarked: "Who ordered this?" Or words to that effect. If the above is
correct in part, would
have an answer to that question, in that a brain locus for a cosmic
superdeterminism needs
a particle that is very much like a photon with its speed but with the
ability to never interact
with matter until it reaches a brain-locus of a living creature.

--- quoting some archived old posts of mine ---
Chemistry

Chemistry Science Re: Synchrotron Radiation intrinsic to atomic
structure? Re: pulsars &quasars h

  Re: Synchrotron Radiation intrinsic to atomic structure? Re: pulsars
&quasars h

I guess I am not making my question crystal clear enough.

What I want to know is whether Synchrotron Radiation can be a
fundamental
characteristic **inside of atoms**. Or, whether all
synchrotronradiation is
a secondary phenomenon and never a fundamental aspect found inside of
atoms.

Primary atomic structures are spin, magnetic moment, angular momentum
etc etc.
Is Synchrotron Radiation ever a primary atomic structure?

Radioactivity is a primary atomic structure. Is SynchrotronRadiation
also as
primary and fundamental to a single atom as Radioactivity.

I hope that makes clear of what I seek.

And as a sidenote, this discussion of SynchrotronRadiation reminds me
so much
of temperature as a fundamental atomic structure. Most every physicist
today
would say temperature is not a primary structure of a single atom
since they
believe an atom has no internal parts to make a temperature. But
Debroglie
wrote
a entire book on the idea that a atom has internal temperature. And I
believe
an
atom has internal temperature due to the dots of the electron-dot-
cloud
are the

numerous particles that create an internal temperature and the
internal
temperature of 231Pu is 2.71 Kelvin. So this temperature question
reminds
me of this question of whether a Isolated Atom has internal
SychrotronRadiation
provided it is radioactive atom.

I would disagree with you, for I believe the Isolated Atom has not
only an
internal temperature created from those numerous dots of the electron-
dot-cloud

but also if that atom is radioactive that it also has a fundamental
internal
SynchrotronRadiation that can be calculated.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

  Re: Synchrotron Radiation intrinsic to atomic structure? Re: pulsars
&quasars h

Thus, it seems to me that every radioactive isotope has internal
SynchrotronRadiation. Taken for granted that the degree of synchrotron
radiation
by uranium would not be much different from that of plutonium
just as the internal temperature of uranium would be a not much
different
from the 2.71 degrees Kelvin of plutonium.

Every atom has an internal temperature because every atom has dots
of the electron-dot-cloud. By the same sort of reasoning since every
radioactive atom has emission of charged particles is accelerated and
thus
they all have synchrotronradiation as intrinsic.
--- end quoting old posts of mine ---

Now I was wondering as I was rereading my old posts above as to what I
was thinking
when I wrote them. Was I thinking that intrinsic synchrotron radiation
of an atom totality
would be visible or noticeable as a cosmic feature? Was I thinking
that pulsars and quasars
are the side-effect of synchrotron-radiation of an atom totality?

Or could even the cosmic redshift be a synchrotron-radiation effect?

I do not know at this moment. I do not know enough about synchrotron
radiation if it exists
inside an atom and especially an Atom Totality as to what that
radiation results as a observation for intelligent life.

Actually I have not thought-out or made a detailed list of the atomic
characteristics and
tried matching them with cosmic characteristics. Some cosmic
characteristics we are
familar with are galaxy-solar system, color, microwave radiation
quantized at 2.71 K, temperature, geometrical shape of dodecahedron.
But what about other characteristics of atomic structure? Is
synchrotron radiation a atomic feature? If so, how would it show
itself on a cosmic scale? The electron-dot-cloud of atomic structure
appears as the cosmic structure
of galaxies and planetary-systems embedded in space.

So if synchrotron radiation were an instrinsic atomic feature how
would it show itself
in the cosmos? Would it be the quasars, or maybe the pulsars? Or,
perhaps synchrotron
radiation is the redshift of galaxies?

I do not know as of yet, even whether synchrotron radiation is a
intrinsic feature of an atom.

I do know that "spin" is an intrinsic feature of an atom, and
designated as spin 1/2. But here, I am not sure how "spin" becomes a
cosmic observable feature. Our first inclination would be to think of
a spinning toy top, but that is a oversimplification. However, it
maybe the case that
atomic spin does actually turn out to be some cosmic spin of sorts,
where the cosmos is moving about a axis. And evidence of this may
arrive in the form of there being observable
poles in the cosmos. If we find that there is a galactic wall at the
Sloan Great Wall and then another galactic wall on the opposite side
of the cosmos, then we can say the Universe has
two poles, which then implies a cosmic "spin".

--- requoting previous text ---
I am having a hard time in locating good enough pictures of the
 Perseus-Pisces
 supercluster and the Pavo-Indus supercluster. Here is a better
picture
 than
 what Jarrett's mapping shows:

http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/nearsc.html

http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/wnearsc.gif
--- end quoting ---

The reason I bring up the perseus supercluster is that it appears to
be on the opposite
side of the Sloan and Great Wall superclusters. So that perhaps the
cosmos has two polar
regions? And the only explanation for two poles would be a cosmic
spin, and of course that
would be a ultimate and deciding data or observation and would
immediately trashcan the
Big Bang theory.

But alot of scientists need to see a nucleus in a telescope or other
instrument before they
accept the Atom Totality.

So that is one of the reasons I should make a detailed list of *atomic
characteristics*
and then try to determine what *cosmic characteristic* would accrue
from that atomic
feature.

I already mentioned "spin" as atomically intrinsic, and raised the
question of what if spin
were translated into cosmic features? What can we expect to observe? I
think we can expect that spin would create two poles of the Cosmos.
Two poles where the galactic density is
enormously high and away from the poles the galactic density
decreases. So looking at cosmic mappings, the question arises as to
whether Perseus supercluster is a cosmic pole
and the Shapley supercluster the opposite cosmic pole?

The thing nice about a Cosmic poles is that they are observable,
whereas the "nucleus" may
never be observable directly since it is in a plutonium node.

And another feature that is worth looking into in detail is
synchrotron radiation and as to whether the quasars, pulsars or the
red-shift are the result of a cosmic-synchrotron radiation.
What is so nice about this feature, unlike the missing mass, is that
it is directly observable
as witnessed by the existence of (a) quasars (b) pulsars (c) redshift.

So in summary, what I am looking for is a characteristic of any atom
which would have
to translate into a characteristic of the observable Universe, and if
I find a characteristic that
is easy to identify in the cosmos, would almost immediately elevate
the Atom Totality theory
and trashcan the Big Bang. The missing mass as the nucleus of the Atom
Totality should do it, except it has the problem that it is not
directly observable because of atomic nodes.

So would atomic-spin be observable? Does atomic structure have
synchrotron radiation?
And if so, does it translate into having quasars and pulsars and
redshift?