The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition

The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook
by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017

These are the final days of 2017 and I have a one last chance opportunity to run through the entire textbook with comments. I have found that "comments" are an essential ingredient in writing a textbook, for the author can reflect at juncture points, any
changes or thoughts of the moment. Comments give flexibility to an otherwise rigid text, and rigidity is something to abhor in science. If you do not like change, well, writing a science text is not for you. So by commenting at the end of pages, this
gives the author that needed flexibility, and warns him of what to write in a future edition.

So, one last go around for 2017, then, auf wiedersehen.

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 18:18:07 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Page1, 1-1, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + AP-Maxwell-Equations-Describing
Physics, 8th ed.
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2017 02:18:07 +0000


Page1, 1-1, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + AP-Maxwell-Equations-Describing Physics, 8th ed.

PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE
by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017


Preface:

Now I said I wanted Clarity, Comprehension, and Logical Flow in this textbook and keep that foremost in mind. In a way, after all these years, 24 of them, I seem to have learned -- how to write a science textbook. By writing preliminary pages and then
constant editing. They say practice makes perfect.

I think this textbook should be of Brevity also, and with the smallest amount of pages possible, under 100 pages. I do not want to ramble on.

I think the first chapter should have many pictures, have some pictures in mind, for pictures with ideas are the most comprehensive teaching, and the first two chapters should be pictures with history to put things in perspective.


page1, 1-1 Pictures of Atom-Totality-Universe

I cannot show pictures except ascii-art in sci.physics, so I refer the reader to the many textbooks listed that shows pictures of what electrons (electron=muon) of an atom looks like.

A large proportion of people reading this textbook, think that an electron=muon is one round ball that revolves around a proton-neutron nucleus of an atom. They are far from the true reality of what the electron=muon looks like. And most people are
aghast or stunned to find out that the electron=muon looks like millions of fine grained glass dust evenly spread over a confined space, which in physics is called the electron-dot-cloud.

One of my earliest ascii-art of the last electron=muon of plutonium was this:

Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon

::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::

One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And
each dot represents another galaxy.

Look in a quantum physics textbook or a chemistry textbook for pictures of what an electron=muon looks like. An electron=muon is many white dots surrounding a nucleus. This is commonly called the "Electron Dot Cloud".

Now, look at the night sky and replace those shining galaxies, shining stars, with the white dots of an electron=muon cloud. And there you have the Atom Totality Universe theory in a picture.

It was on 7 November 1990, woken from sleep that I discovered the Atom Totality Universe and the picture from textbooks that I was thinking of in my mind during the discovery was the Halliday & Resnick picture of what the electron=muon of an atom looks
like. And I hope the reader himself/herself looks up that picture in Halliday & Resnick textbook PHYSICS, Part 2, Extended
Version , 1986, of page 572.

In the 1990s I did a survey in mathematics of math professors doing a Euclid Infinitude of Primes proof in which 84% of them failed to deliver a valid proof, which can be seen in my Correcting Math textbook of 2016. And the reason I bring that issue up
is perhaps I should do a survey in physics, or, all the sciences, asking someone to draw a picture of the electron=muon of a hydrogen atom on a piece of paper with pencil. Will most fail?

Looking at Halliday & Resnick textbook PHYSICS, Part 2, Extended Version , 1986, on page 572. This is a large electron=muon cloud dot picture for which I quote the caption.

CHAP.26 CHARGE AND MATTER.
Figure 26-5
An atom, suggesting the electron
cloud and, above, an enlarged view
of the nucleus.
--- end quoting ---

You see, the dots of the electron=muon cloud, its billions upon billions of dots, is one electron=muon itself. An electron is perhaps 10^180 dots that comprise the electron=muon.

And on the historic day 7 November, 1990, having awoken from sleep and remembering that picture in Halliday & Resnick, did I discover the Atom Totality Universe theory. I put together the idea that the dots of the electron dot cloud are actual galaxies
and stars in the night sky.

The dots of the electron dot cloud are actual mass chunks or pieces of one electron=muon.

So that if we had a survey test of scientists, especially physicists, would they draw the hydrogen atom of one electron=muon and one proton as this:

o .

Where the electron=muon is a ball going around a tiny ball of a proton nucleus? Probably that is their picture of an electron=muon, and, their understanding of what a proton and electron=muon are, -- some spheres going around one another.

They probably would never draw