--- quoting from Dirac's excellent little book Directions in Physics, 1978, page 77 ---
This continuous creation of matter must be looked upon as something quite independent of known physical processes. According to the ordinary physical processes, which we study in the laboratory, matter is conserved. Here we have direct nonconservation of matter. It is, if you like, a new kind of radioactive process for which there is nonconservation of matter and by which particles are created where they did not previously exist. The effect is very small, because the number of particles created will be appreciable only when we wait for a very long time interval compared with the age of the Universe.
--- end quote ---
Now Dirac goes on to discuss whether New Radioactivity is additive or multiplicative.
But my concern is whether we can turn the Periodic Table of Chemical Elements around to show that **radioactive growth** occurs equally to that of radioactive decay. For we commonly think of finding a sample of uranium with lead and then go on to assume or presume that all the lead came from the uranium decaying into lead, whereas there is the other possibility that some of the lead was created from a lower atomic numbered element and that some of the uranium was created from lower atomic numbered element such as lead itself. So that when we find a sample of U238 with half life of 4.5 billion years and find half the sample is U238 and the other half is lead, we jump to the false conclusion of 4.5 billion years old, whereas in fact, it was likely to be 6 billion years old since some of the lead turned into U238 and some of the thallium and mercury turned into lead.
So we need, in chemistry and physics a brand new chart or table showing us the pathways of Radioactive Growth due to Dirac's New Radioactivity.
Now I began to make a list of mean density gram/cm^3 of planets and satellites:
gas giant satellites Ganymede 1.93 Titan 1.87 Europa 3.01 Io 3.52
Our own Moon 3.34
Now taking a close look at this table, if we consider some satellites such as Europa and Io as having been "captured metal asteroid", then the rest of the table divides into two. Where we have the Sun and inner planets with the Moon as being 10 billion years old and growing via Dirac's New Radioactivity, whereas the outer planets, the gas giants as being a mere 5 billion years old and their density is evidence of this younger age.
So that physicists need to prepare a table for Radioactive Growth alongside our presently existing table of radioactive decay pathways.
One of the pathways of growth appears to be heavy water in comets where there is sparse density, but that radioactive growth of heavy water is uncommon where there is greater density such as in Earth oceans. So that if you had water on a comet, it is likely to grow into heavy water whereas that same water on Earth is Dirac new radioactive growth unlikely to happen. So physicists need to start preparing Radioactive Growth pathway tables. Such a table should explain why thorium and uranium are so strangely abundant in the cosmos when it should not be so abundant.
More than 90 percent of AP's posts are missing in the Google newsgroups author search archive from May 2012 to May 2013. Drexel University's Math Forum has done a far better job and many of those missing Google posts can be seen here: