Any attacks on this model for me not being a physicist are 100% correct. They are also 100% ad hominem. Any attacks on this model for putting time in the 0th dimension, because thousands of brilliant minds have put time in the 4th dimension, is an appeal to authority, another logical fallacy. I didn't want to put time 0th. The structure of the atom told me to.
1. ChatGPT4 was used in the creation of this model.
How nice it would have been if I could have asked ChatGPT about the structure of the atom and it suggests a hypercube! This is not what happened. I did not set out to create a unified field theory.
I listened to Art Bell on the AM radio as a teenager. His shows were filled with stories of the paranormal, UFOs. One guest's name was Bob Lazar. He spoke of Element 115 and it was always interested me as an energy source and has stuck in my mind. I took advanced chemistry classes, advanced physics classes. One day, when advanced chemistry was coming to a close, I had a conversation with a seatmate and then asked the teacher afterwards about the nucleon count going 4, then 16, between the 1st and second period, and how this was a square. The teacher then pointed, out the next row, period 3, where the pattern didn't hold.
In college I took chemsitry and biology for the first two years and then switched my major to philosophy. I never much gave the periodic table another look until recently.
In 2004, Moscovium was discovered. Element 115 became a reality (even if briefly). Memories of Bob Lazar and Element 115 came flooding back and I dismissed the entire thing as science fiction.
In about 2010, I wrote a script that downloaded the Florida Statutes, and I needed to create ways to navigate within my website and have link text automatically update, so I learned rudimentary PHP to create what was necessary to navigate the statutes. In 2023, I hardened the PHP code with ChatGPT, and started adding features to the code.
In 2023, David Grusch came forward and stated that the US Government had recovered crashed alien vessels. The similarity between what Grusch was stating and the stories of Bob Lazar are not that dissimilar, so some people again started talking about Element 115. I wanted to know more about element 115. Specifically, I wanted to pretend that I had the answer to the stability of Moscovium on the internet, for giggles. I particularly remembered Bob Lazar stating that even if we did create element 115, that we probably would not have the right isotope for the purposes of stability of the element.
I wanted to throw one hat in the ring, sending a tweet out what would appear to be an answer for the nucleon number of stable Moscovium. I did not want it to be a random guess. In essence, I wanted a model for the stability of isotopes. I was surprised that this had not been done by someone, somewhere already. It might have been done. Rather than look it up, I decided to use ChatGPT to make an educated guess.
I began looking again at the periodic table, not having done so in years. I looked at numbers within the perodic table, the same numbers that I looked at when I was a teenager in chemistry class. I fed the numbers of probable stable isotopes of atoms by number nucleons in the column of Moscovium, and asked it to make a prediction on the next number, changing the numbers of the isotope based on stability. i.e. As75, Sb 121, 123, Bismuth 209, 208. After numerous tries, ChatGPT only once provided a number that looked like it was close to the 289. It provided the number of 300. I asked it how it came up with the number. ChatGPT then responded with a calculation based on the pattern using simple arithmetic. It then said that based on the math that it used for the prediction, that the number was actually 303.
For my own amusement and enjoyment, I would tell people that 303 nucleons were necessary for a stable version of Moscovium. A blanket and unprovable statement that I found funny.
After a few conversations, some joking, some serious, I set out to instead try to use the nucleon numbers of the Noble gasses. Once again, because it was the only thing that worked before, I was focusing on the stable isotopes within the columns.
I tried several different times, several different ways, with several fresh prompts, the same way that I would use ChatGPT to work on my website. Eventually, this prompt yielded a result that looked interesting:
"Assume that we are creating a pattern with a shape, arranging them in physical space. A term that will be used for the patterns that match a specific number, when the number is most spherical will be called "the golden pattern." When there is just 1 shape, it is perfectly spherical and matches the golden pattern. When there is two, it is linear, so does not match the golden pattern. When there is 3, it is triangular and therefore doesn't match the golden pattern. When there is 4, the square shape in three dimensions appears more "rounded" and circular, and therefore it matches the golden pattern. The golden pattern goes like this: 1, 4, 20, 40, 84. Find 3 possible candidates for what the next number in the golden pattern might be and tell me how you calculated the number."
Such a prompt was supposed to be a hope to find a mathematical pattern between Xenon, Radon, and Oganesson.
Chat GPT's response was:
It seems that the sequence follows a pattern related to the number of vertices, edges, faces, or cells in specific dimensional shapes, which usually relate to the idea of a "spherical" shape. From the sequence you've provided, the first two numbers correspond to a point and a tetrahedron in 3-dimensional space. The other numbers look suspiciously like numbers related to certain "spherical" objects in higher dimensions.
If we take this approach, we can think of "spherical" objects in different dimensions:
In 0 dimensions, we have a point. It has 1 "vertex" (the point itself). So, the first number is 1.
In 3 dimensions, we have a tetrahedron (a 3-dimensional shape with 4 vertices), so the second number is 4.
For higher dimensions, we have analogs of spheres known as "hyperspheres". In 4, 5, and 6 dimensions, the hyperspheres are sometimes referred to as the 4D "glome", 5D "penteract", and 6D "hexeract" respectively.
For a glome (a 4-dimensional "ball"), we might consider the number of "cells" (3-dimensional components) it has, which is 1. However, this does not align with the pattern given.
For a penteract (5D), it has 32 vertices, 80 edges, 80 faces, and 20 cells. The number 20 aligns with the pattern.
For a hexeract (6D), it has 64 vertices, 192 edges, 240 faces, 160 cells, and 40 hypercells (4-dimensional components). The number 40 aligns with the pattern.
Assuming we're sticking to the vertices/edges/faces/cells concept, the number sequence is probably connected to these counts in certain hyperspheres. One possibility is that the sequence represents the number of "hypercells" in each dimension from 0 to 6, but this explanation is not perfect and depends on some creative interpretation. It's worth noting that the idea of what constitutes a "spherical" shape can vary, so this is just one possible explanation.
If we continue this pattern, we need to consider what the next "spherical" shape in 7 dimensions would be, called a hepteract, and count its vertices/edges/faces/cells, etc. Unfortunately, these numbers can get rather complex and aren't readily available. Calculating them would require a detailed understanding of higher-dimensional geometry.
Given this approach, the next number would likely be related to the 7D "hepteract". It would be a large number, likely greater than the previous one (84), and would likely be a number associated with the number of vertices, edges, faces, cells, or hypercells of a hepteract. Unfortunately, without a clear pattern and more specific information, it's not easy to provide three concrete possible next numbers in the sequence.
That being said, if we find a consistent rule for picking numbers from the attributes of these high dimensional spheres, we could find a consistent sequence. Given that this pattern is not a standard mathematical sequence, you have the liberty to define how these attributes translate into numbers in your sequence, and it could lead to a multitude of correct answers depending on the rule you set.
I looked for theories that used this sort of structure and did not find anything about a model of an atom that uses hypercube mathematics to describe what is happening inside the atom.
I emailed a prominent physicist who had done some research in hypercube theory as well as quantum physics to ask him if anyone had ever suggested this model and got no reply. I researched the theory of the hypercube as it relates to the atom and found not that much, same with the p-orbital. I found reference to them most commonly in geometry, mathematics, and drug use. After the creation of my theory, while writing this rumination, I did find the work of Colin Power, who, in February of 2023, did attempt to link the geometry of hypercubes to shell orbitals. I have not found anyone else to have made this direct a connection between hypercubes and shell orbitals, nor did I know about Mr. Power's geometrical hypercube model at the time of my theory. If I had seen it, I probably would have had my ideas completely poisoned.
I began by trying to conceptualize the use of 4d geometry to try and apply it. I had ChatGPT use Wolfram-Alpha to calculate the faces, vertices, edges, and cells of these 4d structures all the way to an 8d octeract. I then began trying to match up the geometrical shapes of a hypercube with the periodic table. The only logical result that I could infer was the layout that is presented in the paper. After I layed it out, I began to think about the electron orbitals, and the "preservation" of the alpha particle. At some point in time during this process, I asked ChatGPT whether any models of electron orbitals had to do with the position of the nucleus. It said something to the effect that the idea was interesting.
I struggled immensely with the idea of timeyness in the 4th dimension, as mentioned in my theory. I thought about the P-orbital in the second period, and how it was kind of a duality. I loved the idea of the 4th dimension, as time, existing in two places at once. Like an alternate timeline, or maybe suggestive of the philosophical concepts of free will and determinism. That night, before I went to bed, I pulled out a physics book from 1969, given to me by my grandfather when I asked him how radio waves work. I read the last chapter, chuckled about how lithium was tightly controlled substance, then went to bed.
The next morning, and all throughout the next day, I thought about the alpha particle. I think I was in a gas station when I came up with the idea of a 3d-4d spin engine for the alpha particle. I first thought about thermodynamics and how beautiful a model it would provide. I thought about other atoms "disturbing" this spin engine. I thought about Bose-Einstein condensate. Water. Capillary response. I was quite excited. I quickly realized however, that my model of the interaction of 3d and 4d positioning, the alpha particle spin engine I thought was so clever was impossible if time was the 4th dimension. This is when it was reordered from the forth to the 0th. Only upon doing this did the idea become anything resembling a unified field theory begin to take shape.
2. What now? What the ____ is someone supposed to do when they think they stumbled upon a unified field theory?
Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" was always of interest to me after reading it in college. Kuhn's statement that science is "a series a peacful interludes punctuated by intellectually violent revolutions" holds true. This theory is not "normal science" and is outside the paradigm of the current practice. The adoption of a new model (assuming that this theory holds as closer to the truth) requires a paradigm shift.
The fundamentals of quantum mechanics have been working very well for us as a whole. What reason could ever be given for needing to change them?
I still am not sure. Instead, I am trying to get as many eyes on it as possible, hoping that the new framework of unlimited information at our fingertips could somehow make things different. A smooth transition. Something that doesn't deny the workability of quantum mechanics while we transition into new mathematics. If I wrote you an email asking you to look at this website, this was my main motiviation. And, I also really really want to know if I'm dead wrong.