Born to Do Math 178 – Modern Atomism: Indivisible Cross-Sections of the Universe

In-Sight Publishing

Born to Do Math 178 – Modern Atomism: Indivisible Cross-Sections of the Universe

July 22, 2020

[Beginning of recorded material]

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, outside of photons, based on the last session, what would be some other indivisible things, as in an extension of the atomists?

Rick Rosner: Neutrinos and anti-Neutrinos, electrons (kind of), while electrons are indivisible, they are interchangeable. There are the two different types of fundamental particles. The bosons that follow Bose-Einstein statistics and then the ones that do the other thing. There are two different type of particles depending on whether the particles are interchangeable in a certain way or not. Protons are semi-indivisible. In that, they contain three quarks, so do neutrons. But the quarks can’t be pulled apart. You can flip a proton into being a neutron. Protons can turn into neutrons and vice versa. However, the process involves emitting energy and electrons, and anti-neutrinos, or neutrinos, depending on which way you are going. So, they are divisible. Protons and neutrons can come apart into sets of particles. Or you can take several particles and crash them together. They have a low capture. Neutrinos have a low capture cross-section. So, any one event is unlikely. But in the aggregate, it happens. So, protons are divisible.

Jacobsen: What is the informational equivalent of division here? If you take various particles that can be divided, then they do get divided. What is the equivalence in informational terms there?

Rosner: I look at protons as being more open to the universe. Protons have a charge, an electrical charge. So, they interact electromagnetically with the stuff in their vicinity. Neutrons have zero charge. So, they don’t interact. I look at protons as being some open variable, where, in situations that we would consider normal – that is, situations on Earth with regard to most matter, the vast majority of protons have an electron associated with them. Most of the time, either a proton is part of an atomic nucleus, which has a cloud of electrons that has the same number as the number of protons or it’s a nucleus that’s slightly ionized. It is temporarily missing an electron, part of a molecule, etc.

For the most part, stuff forms that has little net charge. Anything that is normal matter, not a plasma and so a solid, liquid, or gas, has the same number of electrons as protons in a reasonably sized sample of this stuff. I see the proton-electron system as a system for information exchange; the way everything is a system of information exchange. When parts of the universe coalesce, and release energy by coalescing, you’ve created information. You’ve created a bunch of association and information when a bunch of hydrogen atoms forming a gas in space gravitationally collapse into each other and form a star. Before the star even starts burning through fusion, a bunch of energy is released – heat energy. Gravitational energy is released as photons because as the gas coalesces, falls into itself, from a big cloud of gas into a star or a pre-star.

All the fall in has turned potential energy into kinetic energy, which, eventually, gets released as photons. The photons contain the information that this stuff has coalesced. This mass of 10^68th atoms has come together. So, I see protons plus electrons as association generators. With all these new associations formed, here is the information about them released to the rest of the universe, a neutron is not stable. Unless, it is locked into a nucleus. A free neutron has a half-life of like 11 minutes. It will break apart into a proton plus an electron plus a neutrino, or anti-neutrino, plus a photon. But a proton that gets locked into the nucleus with another neutron forming a deuterium nucleus – one proton plus one neutron – is again releasing a lot of energy. It, too, is – that energy – information about an association a linking that has been formed, which is shared with the rest of the universe.

The deal is, it happens a lot in stars, but stars have 10^68th atoms. So, the odds that there will be two protons crashing into each other and fusing into a proton-neutron nucleus. The odds are low individually. But there are 10^68th atoms smushed into each other, super smushed into the guts in the star, plus absorbing tremendous energy all of the time from the huge temperature at the centre of the Sun. Protons by the quadrillion per second fuse. These collisions that are unlikely as individual events; these potential fusings. So many of them happen, even though, they are super unlikely – a gazillion of them happen every second. It is a tight association that these two protons found themselves so close together with enough energy to overcome their mutual repulsion. That they formed into a stable nucleus. It has one net charge instead of two. You take two protons. It turns into a proton-neutron with one charge of a nucleus. If it weren’t ionized at the centre of a star, if you had a deuterium atom somewhere else, it would have one electron orbiting it.

That, to me, is an associative shorthand in the universe. It says, “You don’t need to worry where these two protons are because they are locked together. There’s only one variable here. That’s the one proton with its electron and the other proton has been locked down. We know what’s up with it. It’s so close. Its history let it become so close to this electron. Now, it’s locked down and very tightly linked with the electron. It is a tight association.” So, the universe is an association engine.

Jacobsen: What is another term for engine here, generator?

Rosner: Yes, as you move through time, the number of associations formed generally increases. Things don’t fall apart. They fall together.

Jacobsen: I see two-way association here too.

Rosner: We should talk about what IC says in terms of the cycle of things. Associations are formed. As galaxies run out of stuff to fuse, the galaxies go dark and are pushed aside by more active association engines. The burned out galaxies participate less and are frozen on the outskirts of the universe. Until association on a huge, cosmic scale pulls them back in, and also lights them back up again, strips them of some of their associations, or they accumulate new wads of gas, which can light the galaxy again.

[End of recorded material]


Rick Rosner

American Television Writer


(Updated July 25, 2019)

*High range testing (HRT) should be taken with honest skepticism grounded in the limited empirical development of the field at present, even in spite of honest and sincere efforts. If a higher general intelligence score, then the greater the variability in, and margin of error in, the general intelligence scores because of the greater rarity in the population.*

According to some semi-reputable sources gathered in a listing hereRick G. Rosner may have among America’s, North America’s, and the world’s highest measured IQs at or above 190 (S.D. 15)/196 (S.D. 16) based on several high range test performances created by Christopher HardingJason BettsPaul Cooijmans, and Ronald Hoeflin. He earned 12 years of college credit in less than a year and graduated with the equivalent of 8 majors. He has received 8 Writers Guild Awards and Emmy nominations, and was titled 2013 North American Genius of the Year by The World Genius Directory with the main “Genius” listing here.

He has written for Remote ControlCrank YankersThe Man ShowThe EmmysThe Grammys, and Jimmy Kimmel Live!. He worked as a bouncer, a nude art model, a roller-skating waiter, and a stripper. In a television commercialDomino’s Pizza named him the “World’s Smartest Man.” The commercial was taken off the air after Subway sandwiches issued a cease-and-desist. He was named “Best Bouncer” in the Denver Area, Colorado, by Westwood Magazine.

Rosner spent much of the late Disco Era as an undercover high school student. In addition, he spent 25 years as a bar bouncer and American fake ID-catcher, and 25+ years as a stripper, and nearly 30 years as a writer for more than 2,500 hours of network television. Errol Morris featured Rosner in the interview series entitled First Person, where some of this history was covered by Morris. He came in second, or lost, on Jeopardy!, sued Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? over a flawed question and lost the lawsuit. He won one game and lost one game on Are You Smarter Than a Drunk Person? (He was drunk). Finally, he spent 37+ years working on a time-invariant variation of the Big Bang Theory.

Currently, Rosner sits tweeting in a bathrobe (winter) or a towel (summer). He lives in Los AngelesCalifornia with his wife, dog, and goldfish. He and his wife have a daughter. You can send him money or questions at LanceVersusRick@Gmail.Com, or a direct message via Twitter, or find him on LinkedIn, or see him on YouTube.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Founder, In-Sight Publishing


In-Sight Publishing


[1] Four format points for the session article:

  1. Bold text following “Scott Douglas Jacobsen:” or “Jacobsen:” is Scott Douglas Jacobsen & non-bold text following “Rick Rosner:” or “Rosner:” is Rick Rosner.
  2. Session article conducted, transcribed, edited, formatted, and published by Scott.
  3. Footnotes & in-text citations in the interview & references after the interview.
  4. This session article has been edited for clarity and readability.

For further information on the formatting guidelines incorporated into this document, please see the following documents:

  1. American Psychological Association. (2010). Citation Guide: APA. Retrieved from
  2. Humble, A. (n.d.). Guide to Transcribing. Retrieved from

License and Copyright


In-Sight Publishing  by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at and


© Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rick Rosner, and In-Sight Publishing 2012-2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rick Rosner, and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s