Planetron Ejection Resolution

Date: February 26, 2026

Status: Resolved

Resolves: Gemini Inconsistency #1 (Photoelectric Effect: Planetrons vs. Orbitrons)

Primary Axiom: Axiom 1, Section 7: Frequency-Specific Planetron Ejection

1. The Inconsistency

Gemini's February 24, 2026 review of Axioms 1–10 identified a direct contradiction:

• Axiom 1 (Section 7): States that the wave "resonates with the outermost planetron" and eventually ejects it
• Axiom 3 (Section 1): States that ejected particles are "likely larger orbitron objects from the outer valence clouds rather than planetrons"
• Axiom 3 (Section 7): Re-asserts that the photoelectric effect involves the "resonant ejection of the outermost planetron"

Additionally, the existing validation work (Photoelectric Effect) had flagged "What Gets Ejected?" as an open question with three possibilities:

1. Entire electron plane (all planetrons)
2. Only outer valence orbitrons
3. Specific planetrons that resonate most strongly

2. Resolution: Frequency-Specific Planetron Ejection

Answer: The ejected particle is a specific planetron, determined by the incoming wave frequency.

2.1 The Spectral Line Frequency Argument

The decisive evidence comes from comparing photoelectric threshold frequencies against spectral emission line frequencies for each element:

The threshold frequencies sit squarely within the spectral line frequency range for every tested element.

Since spectral lines ARE planetron orbital frequencies (established in hydrogen spectral analysis and validated across multiple elements), the photoelectric effect is unambiguously operating on planetrons. Orbitrons in the diffuse valence cloud occupy much larger orbital radii and would have entirely different characteristic frequencies $\rightarrow$ they cannot be the source of the observed threshold behavior.

2.2 Frequency Determines Which Planetron

Each planetron occupies a distinct orbital radius with a unique orbital frequency, just as Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, etc. each have distinct orbital periods in our solar system. The incoming wave frequency determines which planetron resonates most strongly:

• A frequency matching the outermost planetron's orbital harmonics $\rightarrow$ ejects that planetron
• A higher frequency matching a deeper planetron's harmonics $\rightarrow$ ejects that planetron instead
• What conventional physics interprets as "ejecting identical electrons at different energies" is actually ejecting different planetrons from different orbital radii

2.3 Multi-Planetron Collective Resonance

The Multi-Planetron Photoelectric Resonance analysis (December 27, 2025) demonstrated that photoelectric thresholds represent frequencies where 6–9 planetrons resonate simultaneously through different harmonics:

• Hydrogen: 7/8 planetrons (1.8% average error)
• Cesium: 7 planetrons (4.5% average error)
• Sodium: 9 planetrons (5.8% average error)
• Copper: 6 planetrons (4.2% average error)

The collective resonance destabilizes the atomic structure, and the planetron most strongly coupled to the incoming frequency is the one that gets ejected. This is why there is a sharp threshold: below the threshold, too few planetrons resonate for collective destabilization; at threshold, enough resonate simultaneously to overcome binding.

3. The Constant \( e/m \) Ratio: Why All Planetrons Look Identical

3.1 The Challenge

If different-frequency waves eject different-mass planetrons, conventional measurements should detect mass differences. Yet Thomson-type experiments always measure the same charge-to-mass ratio (\( e/m_e = 1.76 \times 10^{11} \) C/kg) regardless of conditions.

3.2 The Iron Composition Argument

AAM resolves this through the uniform iron composition of all planetrons at \( SL_{-1} \).

Per Axioms 4, 8, and 10, matter at lower similarity levels has completed its fusion cycles and reached the iron endpoint $\rightarrow$ the most stable nuclear configuration. All planetrons are therefore iron-based solid bodies of the same composition and density, differing only in size (mass).

For such bodies:

Magnetic moment:

\[ \mu \propto M_{\text{magnetization}} \times V \]

where \( M_{\text{magnetization}} \) is the magnetization (material constant for iron) and \( V \) is volume. For constant density \( \rho \):

\[ V = \frac{M}{\rho} \]

\[ \therefore \mu \propto M \]

Inertial resistance to acceleration in measurement apparatus:

\[ a = \frac{F}{M} \]

where force \( F \) depends on the magnetic moment (which is what conventional physics calls "charge" in the particle-detection context):

\[ F \propto \mu \propto M \]

\[ \therefore a = \frac{F}{M} \propto \frac{M}{M} = \text{constant} \]

Result: All iron-based planetrons, regardless of size, produce the same acceleration in electromagnetic measurement apparatus. The experimentalist measures the same deflection and concludes "identical particles" $\rightarrow$ but they are different-mass bodies with the same composition giving the same ratio.

3.3 The Gravitational Analogy

This is precisely analogous to the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass: all objects fall at the same rate in a gravitational field because gravitational force scales with mass, and inertial resistance scales with mass. A heavier planetron interacts more strongly with the applied fields BUT resists acceleration proportionally more $\rightarrow$ same measured \( e/m \).

4. Flags for Further Investigation

4.1 Millikan Oil Drop Experiment and Ehrenhaft's Results

Status: NEEDS INVESTIGATION

The constant \( e/m \) argument works for Thomson-type deflection measurements. However, the Millikan oil drop experiment (1909) measures charge independently of mass by balancing electric force against gravity on charged oil drops. If different planetrons carry genuinely different "charges" (magnetic moments), Millikan's experiment should detect different fundamental charge quanta.

Key historical facts:

• Millikan reported a single universal charge quantum \( e = 1.6 \times 10^{-19} \) C
• However, Millikan selectively excluded data points that didn't fit integer multiples of \( e \) (documented by historian Gerald Holton from Millikan's lab notebooks)
• Felix Ehrenhaft, Millikan's contemporary rival, claimed to measure sub-electronic charges $\rightarrow$ fractional values of \( e \). The physics community rejected his results in favor of Millikan's cleaner (cherry-picked) data. Ehrenhaft's career was destroyed over this.

AAM interpretation:

If different planetrons have different magnetic moments (proportional to their different masses), Ehrenhaft's "fractional charges" might have been real measurements of smaller planetrons with proportionally smaller magnetic moments $\rightarrow$ not experimental errors.

Critical insight: The Single-Frequency Source Problem

Millikan ionized air molecules in his chamber using X-rays from a single source at a fixed frequency. Per AAM's frequency-specific planetron ejection mechanism, a single X-ray frequency would eject the same specific planetron from every air molecule. Every oil drop would therefore capture the same type of planetron (or integer multiples of that same type) $\rightarrow$ producing the neat integer-multiple pattern Millikan reported.

Millikan's result does NOT prove that all "electrons" carry the same charge. It may only prove that a single X-ray frequency ejects the same planetron type consistently $\rightarrow$ exactly what AAM predicts.

To detect charge variation, one would need to vary the ionization frequency across measurements, ejecting different planetrons with different magnetic moments. There is no indication Millikan did this $\rightarrow$ he used controlled, consistent conditions as any precision experimentalist would.

Ehrenhaft hypothesis:

If Ehrenhaft used a different ionization source, different X-ray frequency, or broader-spectrum radiation, he may have ejected different planetrons with different magnetic moments, producing the "fractional charges" the physics community dismissed as errors.

Investigation needed:

• Determine Millikan's exact X-ray source and frequency
• Determine Ehrenhaft's ionization method and frequency $\rightarrow$ did it differ from Millikan's?
• Review Ehrenhaft's original data and claimed charge values
• Compare Ehrenhaft's "fractional charges" against predicted planetron mass ratios
• Quantify the expected charge variation from the iron-composition model
• Review Millikan's excluded data points for systematic patterns consistent with occasional different-planetron capture
• Assess modern charge measurements (quantum Hall effect, Josephson junctions) for AAM compatibility $\rightarrow$ especially whether they also use single-frequency ionization sources (see Section 4.2)

4.2 Modern Independent Charge Measurements

Status: NEEDS INVESTIGATION

Modern measurements of \( e \) use methods independent of Millikan:

• Quantum Hall effect
• Josephson junction measurements
• Penning trap cyclotron frequencies
• CODATA combinations

These consistently converge on a single value for \( e \). However, the single-frequency source problem identified in Section 4.1 may apply to modern methods as well. If these experiments generate their "electrons" using a single ionization frequency (or use particles from a single-frequency source), they would always capture/measure the same planetron type $\rightarrow$ producing a single consistent value for \( e \) without proving charge universality across all planetron types.

Investigation needed for each modern method:

1. How are the "electrons" generated? $\rightarrow$ What ionization source/frequency is used?
2. Is the source frequency varied? $\rightarrow$ If not, the measurement only characterizes one planetron type
3. Does the method measure \( e \) directly, or \( e/m \) (which would be constant per the iron-composition argument)?
4. Could the method detect charge differences if different-mass planetrons were deliberately introduced?

AAM needs to either:

1. Show that these methods also measure \( \mu/M \) (giving a constant), OR
2. Show that they use single-frequency ionization (same planetron type every time), OR
3. Explain why the charge variation from different-mass planetrons falls within measurement uncertainty, OR
4. Develop a refined mechanism where the measured "charge" truly is universal despite mass differences

4.3 Quantitative Mass Ratios

Status: NEEDS INVESTIGATION

If planetrons follow solar system planetary mass ratios (scaled to \( SL_{-1} \)), the mass range would be enormous (Mercury:Jupiter \( \approx \) 1:6000). This would produce correspondingly large variations in magnetic moment, which should be easily detectable.

However, AAM does not require planetary mass ratios to be preserved exactly across similarity levels. The mass distribution of planetrons at \( SL_{-1} \) may be much narrower than at \( SL_0 \), especially if:

• Iron composition constrains density to a narrow range
• Orbital mechanics at \( SL_{-1} \) favor a narrower mass distribution
• The "settling" process at \( SL_{-1} \) homogenizes planetron masses more than at \( SL_0 \)

Critical caveat: Hydrogen's mass distribution may not be representative

The wide planetron mass range (Mercury-to-Jupiter analog, roughly 1:6000) is only established for hydrogen $\rightarrow$ a single-nucleon atom corresponding to a single-star system. Higher elements (oxygen, nitrogen, etc.) are multi-nucleon atoms corresponding to multi-star systems with fundamentally different gravitational dynamics:

• Shared planetrons in multi-star systems experience more complex gravitational environments
• Different stability basins and settling patterns may favor a narrower planetron mass distribution
• Multi-nucleon binding could homogenize planetron sizes in ways that single-nucleon hydrogen does not

This is directly relevant to Millikan's experiment, which ionized air molecules (N\(_2\) and O\(_2\)) $\rightarrow$ not hydrogen. If nitrogen and oxygen planetrons have a naturally narrow mass range, Millikan's charge measurements would show minimal variation even with different-frequency ionization sources $\rightarrow$ not because all "electrons" are identical, but because N/O planetrons happen to be similar in mass.

Status: The relative masses of planetrons in higher elements remain unknown. Determining the planetron mass distribution for multi-nucleon atoms is an open problem that requires further theoretical and computational work (likely requiring the N-body simulator for multi-star system configurations).

5. Summary of Changes Made

Axiom Updates (February 26, 2026)

1. Axiom 1, Section 7 $\rightarrow$ Added "Frequency-Specific Planetron Ejection" subsection with spectral line frequency matching evidence, frequency-specific ejection mechanism, constant \( e/m \) ratio explanation (iron composition), and updated threshold explanation from "outermost planetron" to collective resonance
2. Axiom 3, Section 1 $\rightarrow$ Replaced "likely larger orbitron objects" with corrected planetron explanation and cross-reference to Axiom 1
3. Axiom 7 $\rightarrow$ Added cross-reference to frequency-specific ejection and constant \( e/m \) explanation
4. Axiom 8 $\rightarrow$ Added cross-reference connecting decay-context planetron ejection to photoelectric ejection mechanism and constant \( e/m \) ratio

Validation Updates

5. Photoelectric Effect, Section 8.1 $\rightarrow$ "What Gets Ejected?" changed from open question to resolved