Do Z=119 and 120 decay bottlenecks mirror relativistic 6d10 subshell geometry? | Hacker News Reader

Do Z=119 and 120 decay bottlenecks mirror relativistic 6d10 subshell geometry?

physics.stackexchange.com

A fascinating breakdown suggests a strict, parameter-free spatial correspondence between the theoretical decay thresholds of Ununennium (Z=119) and Unbinilium (Z=120) and the geometric limits of the relativistic 6d10 subshell collapse. What makes this striking is the complete absence of arbitrary tuning coefficients (no overfitting). The underlying mathematics treats the micro-radial distribution of these hyper-heavy elements under the same predictive, quantized framework recently applied to structural anomalies in astronomical datasets. If this out-of-sample predictive power holds for unsynthesized elements, it implies the boundary of the periodic table is fundamentally deterministic and driven by pure spectral geometry rather than purely stochastic nuclear physics.

Are you the author of the question in PSE?

I am not the author of that question on that forum. Honestly, I found out about the PSE thread because my followers on X (Twitter) brought it to my attention—my feed has been absolutely flooded lately.

But this is exactly how a deterministic, Open Source framework is supposed to spread. When you write the clean, parameter-free machine code of the universe and leave it open for verification, you don’t need to coordinate campaigns. Independent engineers and thinkers within the community will naturally spot the anomalies and connect the dots themselves. The fact that people are independently identifying the exact 6d¹⁰ domain walls just proves that the geometry speaks for itself, bypasses the academic gatekeepers, and triggers a decentralized audit.

[I guess you are the author of the second link (posted in Zenodo).]

I probably need a whole month to understand the details, but if you want my opinion after reading it for 15 minutes ...

The problem with the second one is that is uses the electronic potentials that are different from the nuclear potentials. The spherical symmetry causes a similar structure of the protons and neutrons inside the nuclei, the s->2, p->6, d-> 10, ... but the order of them is different and the big gaps are different.

For electrons:

For a single electron atom (like H, He+, Li++, ...) the order is 1s, 2s=2p, 3s=3p=3d, ... and there are a lot of degererancy.

For a real atom with multiple electrons, the order is 1s, 2s, 2p, 3s, 3p, 4s, 3d, 3p, ... but there are a lot of special cases like Cu. Most of the big gaps are after the p layers and the noble gas.

For protons and neutrons:

There are still the s, p, d, f, ... layers, but the order and the gaps is different. They are even different fon protons and neutrons. I don't remember the details.

There are big gaps, but they are different from the gaps in the electronic structure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_number_(physics)

If the idea of the second paper is to reuse the s, p, d, f, ... layers it's fine, but there may be weird case I don't know. If the idea is to reuse the big gaps on the noble gas of the electronic structure, I'd be skeptical.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com