A FACT FITTING THEORETICAL MODEL OF THE CRYSTALLINE MATRIX STRUCTURE OF NUCLEI Note: As with the previously proposed models applicable to all fermions, the following nuclide models are elastic and distortable in the cosmo-universe. Please don't conclude that the nuclide forms are always geometrically spherical. It should also be recognized that the form of a single lone ion could be completely different than its shape within a larger atomic matter object (AMO).

The following defies the quantum mechanics metaphysics, and it also rejects the Afbau principle of nucleon filling.

 

This model does build on the nuclear shell model of Wigner Jensen and Goeppert-Mayer. However it deviates in the fundamental basic understanding and theory regarding intrinsic mass and spin momentum in both that theory as well as contemporary harmonic oscillation theories. At high temperatures and pressures this new theoretical model allows certain characteristics of the liquid drop model. G-theory also lends support (to some degree) to Ferman's version of the periodic table.

According to the previously postulated aperiodic space filling matrix of the cosmea as being tetrahedral praetoms forming a vast network of interlocking icosahedrons (only seemingly forming a face centered cubic matrix at first glance), it can be shown that the space of almost any shape can be filled with a high degree of efficiency. Note: This has nothing to do with the mathematical concept of the Euclidean simplex.

I consider that the face centered cubic model which can often be seen to apply to atomic matrices cannot be applied to this ion (cation) model for the profound reason that protons are NOT permitted to be in intimate contact with each other because of similar biracial sign coulombic repulsion. Another important allowance is: It cannot be shown that the space filling construct of a nucleus is actually required to be a closed filling arrangement. The evidence from TE microscopes suggests it is not.

This actually becomes considerable as a matter of fact when you consider that because of the protonic repulsion within atomic nuclei, no matrix pattern can result in complete space filling of all of the possible tetrahedral positions possible within diverse nuclei. The nucleus noted to be an almost perfect 'filling' fit to the otherwise open model is the oxygen nucleus which exhibits an almost complete fill of the icosahedral* shaped first layer, which may (once upon a time in the cosmea) have consisted of twenty praetoms. In theory we would expect the most stable isotope of oxygen to be 20O but we find that in common with most ions that when there are too many neutrons in the shell the overall binding force is lessened.

*No, this theory didn't originate from Fatio's theory which has little in common with G-theory. However, although he didn't envisage the tetrahedral forms it may be of some significance that we both separately derived the same theoretical matter form at different moments in history. In fact I developed this whole theory without any knowledge that others had been thinking along the same lines before me. Of course it is very likely that at this moment of history, if you think up anything at all, you can almost guarantee that someone else has been there before you in some respects.

 

The oxygen atom completely fills the shape except for 4 neutron 'holes'. It becomes somewhat profound to notice that the geometric positioning of these vacant holes (138.1degrees) can be shown to almost exactly equate to the site-ing geometry for hydrogen atoms (about 104deg variable) in the formation of a water molecule (apart from slight charge distortion which is likely caused by the differential charge of the 1H ion that I previously mentioned in passing). Isotopic differences should also exhibit slight changes in the expected valence angle of 109.47deg. This would be because of magnetic dipole shifts in the various nuclei. If there were three bonds then the angle would be an equilateral 138.1deg but because one bond is missing then it distorts to around 104 deg.

Another nucleus which almost completely fills its icosahedral shape is the neon atom. It would exactly fill it except for the same protonic charge repulsion restraints which cause two protons to be forced to stand off into the next layer. However this allows room for four neutrons to bond in an isotopic fashion. Why Neon doesn't -by consequence- have four stable isotopes remains unclear. Apart from the reason just tendered, perhaps it could be because any axially balanced nucleus is inherently unstable because of nodal force patterning.

In addition to the water molecule example; a very interesting and probably model clinching atom is carbon, whereby it can be seen by studying the proposed icosahedral geometric form that for the 12C isotope there are two possible nucleon filling geometries. I.e---

(1) a semi-spherical filling arrangement (graphite).

(2) an evenly distributed geometrical shape with 109.5deg eigenvector shifts (diamond) corresponding to alternate face angles. The filling of the eight non face-touching tetrahedrons immediately produces a face centered cubic arrangement whereby each opposite proton is inverted relative to the other and the force eigenvectors are completely balanced. Other non touching arrangements for atoms up to neon are available but they form pentagonal or hexagonal forms. Diamond is a complete face centered cubic fill of the first shell which disallows any further protons from being added to the matrix in that shell. The diamond forms the octahedral shape because of four left over double-nucleon holes in the shell which exhibit four equilateral geometric eccentricities which in turn forces the overall force affecting form to octahedral*. There are relationships with both octahedral and pentagonal in the icosahedral form. It is a true wonder of nature and is the perfect model fit.

*Or else it can fit in the flat central plane of the icosahedral form. I.e. graphite.

Silicon has six protons equally spaced in its second shell which perfectly relates to its higher order crystalline form. Unfortunately –and likely to be the cause of some controversy- silicon's higher order crystalline structure is able to be assessed as being a face centered cubic form depending on your point of view. The fact is; from a different perspective, that it's also describable as icosahedral as well, so if the rest of this model fits then there is no reason left to consider otherwise. If you try to fit all of these crystalline forms to any other model, some or all are disbarred. Only the icosahedral model works.

These forms also present themselves as being profoundly significant filling arrangements in support of the validity of this whole theoretical model of matter especially when considering the 'no brainer' of graphite and diamond respectively. In addition to that, lies the fact that the matrix form for oxygen which has sixteen nucleons in the first shell turns up two 138.1deg proton attracting spaces (no matter which way you turn it around to look at it) is also model supportive. Even the known negative behavioral relationships are convincing. In other words the rest of the elements are prevented from exhibiting such characteristics in proportion to lack of such structural requirements. Strong validation is expected because once more, the proposed nucleon filling shape is seen to be perfectly reflected in both nucleon structure and higher level AMO crystalline shapes, and along with helium (which is to be analyzed). This model is a serious contender for consensual consideration as fact. Note: in both cases the carbon atom still retains its weird tetravalence.

It is of extreme importance to understand that IT'S NOT THE IONIC ICOSAHEDRAL OR TETRAHEDRAL GEOMETRY THAT IS REFLECTED OUT TO ELECTRON ORBITALS; IT IS THE INTERLOCUTIVE VECTOR FORCE INTERACTION OF THE SHAPE OF THE COMBINED SPACE FILLING GEOMETRY EXTENDING FROM THE NUCLEONS THEMSELVES. This defines the quark interactive G-QED and thermo-ionic energy contributions to the Hilbert space resonance variability, which also (strangely enough) predicts the hybridization of the electron orbitals. Note: Such hybridization need not be at all geometrically reflective of the tetrahedral ionic geometry, in which case other geometries are allowable and indeed observable in higher order AMOs. The shape and positioning of orbitals is proposed elsewhere herein (the G-theory thesis) but notice should perhaps be taken of the icosahedral stellations and their relevance to electron orbital geometry.

In analyzing this method of nucleon filling for any nucleus one is easily able to consider layer (shell) filling*: Up to oxygen only the first layer is used. After this; first and second layers are utilized with variation and (wherever possible by charge interaction) with asymmetry (not symmetry violation as in the quantum sense). It is this icosahedral periodic filling arrangement of layered (yet with aperiodic open structural form in every other layer) but intimately connected tetrahedral nucleon positional structures which allows for variations in the number of stable isotopes per specific nuclide and it also offers an explanation as to why electronegativity/positivity and ionization energy differences per nucleus don't follow the projected values as you move down any group in the periodic table. Such predictability would be expected if space filling was even and perfectly symmetrical as per a face centered cubic matrix and such a consideration is again fully non-supportive of that model but by way of model fitting contrast, such a deviation is fully supportive of the featured 'shell form aperiodic icosahedral space filling theory'. Note: That's at least three evidences and a couple of supportive facts so far, and two serious liabilities for 'face centered cubic' or 'hexagonal' models! There are many other supportive evidences to be found in molecular physics.

Under normal circumstances any given number of bound protons and neutrons will always form the same space filling matrix arrangement. However it will soon be made plain that not every tetrahedral position is always able to be filled with a resident nucleon because of restraints caused by other laws. Neutrons are another matter to be addressed.

The proposition is; that nucleons have three SBF bond points but seeming to counter the logic we notice that the tetrahedron shape to be filled provides for four, which by way of some dilemma could be seen to be a necessary requirement of nucleons for support in a face centered cubic filling structure and so then supportive of that model. However we have already declared the impossibility for the existence of a face centered cubic or hexagonal model and perhaps surprisingly such quad connectivity is also not necessary for a tetrahedral system for reasons which will be forthcoming, not in the least because it is reflective of the triune quark lattice.

The icosa-terahedral form is therefore the only logical solution, so the space filling becomes necessarily aperiodic which is a pattern most artfully depicted in the atomic arrangement of the silicon crystalline structure. This also means that if you consider nucleons to be Q-L centered symmetrical spheres then you may have to think again because the EWF bonds from the Q-L to the extremities are lopsided and close together at an even BUT ELASTICALLY VARIABLE 109.5deg separation. This is statistically the same as the bonding angle for a water molecule.

This also means that once the second shell begins to be filled (I.e. at Ne) that the proton-neutron bonds are now fewer with only one bond per neutron being applicable for every neutron which is bound in the second layer to a first layer proton. This phenomenon, in addition to the overall charge dilution in the nucleus begins to weaken the nucleus in comparison to the single shell nuclei. From this we can gather that things go from bad to worse in the stability department when third shell filling begins.

*Because of charge distribution it is likely that larger more unstable nuclei would be non spherical because of their outer matrix shell/s filling geometry, which would cause them to take on other forms to stabilize as well as maximize their overall SBF. This is all by force vector rationalization and not by personification as intelligence.

 

Chemical bonds which form elemental or dissimilar nuclide bonds, cause a change in the ionic magnetic field moment as well as quark lattice orientation within those nuclides because of retroactive charge and magnetic dipole moments, whereby they soon arrive at a property changing equilibrium. E.g. A lone oxygen atom is not observably magnetic but in the O2 form it is diamagnetic to a small degree.

So then we might conclude that quark charge and magnetic dipole spatial shifts play a significant role in the observed properties of AMOs.

This can explain why nuclides with an unfilled second matrix shell have a differing ability to be magnetized. I will tentatively describe a suspected explanation.  Note: many of the questions that you may be considering should become answered in later chapters, and in this regard specifically in the chapter on specific heat etc.

In order to be able to readily magnetize an AMO, nucleons must have the biracial capacity to be able to be permanently relocated to tetrahedral matrix vacancies next to (but not necessarily touching) protons elsewhere in the matrix. Normally the arrangements see protons keeping as much distance as possible from other protons*. This can be forced by an external magnetizing field** having an affect responding to different layer filling or shape differences.

We should be able to understand that depending on atomic number and isotopic status, different nuclides will also show varying propensities to respond to magnetic influences. If the layer is so full that neutrons are unable to be shifted in any significant manner (because the shell is essentially full) then the nuclide would be considered to be non magnetic.

*These arrangements of positioning become adjusted again when electrons are present in the shells and also to some further degree when boding occurs. Therefore the magnetic characteristics will change accordingly.

* *This of course suggests that loosely located neutrons in an outer layer are less firmly bound than inner layer nucleons of either description that are situated in proximity to a greater number of other nucleons. I.e. these would be considered to be residing in a very cozy and much stronger SBF relationship.

 

 

This fitting model explanation eliminates the 'fobbed off' problem associated with the inexplicably deficient magnetic domain theory, and in light of that; now would probably be a good time to approach the subject of the model prediction of likely laws or principles associated with such nucleon space filling matrices. Note: Strong binding force is declared to be caused by the agency of multi-dimensional biracial attraction.

1/ Without the agency of a relatively stupendous amount of energy, a proton cannot bind with (or fill a space which would place it in contact with) another proton. Neutrons may bind weakly with one other neutron.

2/ Because of the intrinsic quark and meson charge non linearity (symmetry violation of charge dipole moments), protons are consequently attracted to neutrons which have no coulombic charge attractiveness, and may become bound to them with a binding force maximum value of one, in the case of only one proton being bound with one neutron, I.e. a 2H hydrogen isotope; this in no way affects the notional isospin.

3/ Only TWO protons may be bound to ONE neutron in a very stable nucleus. With complex nuclei the weakened force of the electrostatic dipole moments become shared which may be less than optimal in larger nuclei resulting in an increase in instability. If two neutrons are bound with one proton then the relative individual binding forces may be somewhere near 3/4.

4/ Any bound neutron must be in contact with at least one proton to maximize binding force and to enable the nucleus to exhibit maximum stability. Neutrons have many space filling options especially in atoms with unfilled shells (e.g. neon) they are able to conditionally fill these to produce a wide range of stable isotopes but once the proton bond points are all taken up (which occurs before the available spaces are filled) then the isotope would be deemed to be more unstable and the neutron drop effect could come into play.

In larger nuclei the protonic SBFs are already being symbiotically utilized in the deeper layers and the binding force available for outer layers is very much reduced because in the second shell (which is completely filled with proton standoffs at around chromium) at the point of shell filling there are still available proton bonds but after about 83 to 86 protons the atom is inherently unstable because many more are now disparately bound in the third shell.  Note 1: After the first shell this all becomes quite vague in analysis because it is thought that isotopic stability can be affected by electron nodal positioning because such patterning will affect the coulombic charge relationship with various protons and the overall charge field becomes affected. Electronegativity/positivity then has a role to play. Note 2: Remember; even though neutrons are neutral they still have a lopsided (symmetry violating) charge dipole and are conditionally able to weakly bond with each other in a nucleus. The EWF in this case is weaker than the magnetic force.

Conclusion: Isotope stability is not only dependent on the size of the nucleus but also the filling arrangement for the stated reasons.

The second layer of the icosahedral/tetrahedral matrix begins to be filled at oxygen and should be completely full at or near chromium. Isotopic stability doesn't begin until a couple of places further up in the periodic table and in the case of chromium (and also referring back to electron nodal effects) it begins at iron. In between these shell filling points there appears to be only a few filling patterns which will allow for permanent magnetism as a property.  Note: All AMO's have some form of magnetic field which may be measurably neutral, yet the object still has a dipole and g-factor and would still be subject to diamagnetism in the right circumstances. The isotopic stability is pushed up the table from iron because the filling point only refers to the maximum number of non-touching protons and there are still some prime spots for neutrons in the previous shell. By the time we get to the next shell the predictable state is confusion, and instability 'at high temperatures' is becoming close to assured after about 60Fe--- Confused?

It is because of the proposed existence of such a tetrahedral 'saw tooth' like filling pattern, that once the next shell begins to be filled with both protons and neutrons (which allows for a high degree of apparent magnetic field neutrality) and even though the quantum fields are very real; that when the shell is completely filed with protons and neutrons the element is likely to be magnetic. This is also supportive of the theory. Note 1: This doesn't apply to any great extent for the first shell because we can notice very few magnetic dipoles to align. After the third shell there is just too much confusion of nucleon interaction, with large gaps likely to be evident in the shell. A fourth shell would be thought impossible. Note also should perhaps be take that liquid oxygen is diamagnetic.

Note 2: Magnetic field and isotopic changes have little to no affect on chemical properties, but they can have a profound effect on physical properties.

Note 3: Disparate atoms and molecules will have slightly different properties due to limited quark lattice-EWF 'shape shifting' capability within their nucleons.

Considering the paucity of tools we have to work with for destroying atomic nuclei and our even more impotent ability to put them back together again. (Humpty Dumpty can't make a quantum loop!); at the moment none of this is of much importance and the science of magnetic and charge effects in the formation of atomic bonds is already sufficiently well understood. However a better model fit is more able to lead to a more fact based science, and knowledge for knowledge's sake is scientific tradition.

There is no need to change any of the science that's currently being utilized unless there is good reason, and while it must be acknowledged that physics as well as chemistry can be an excruciatingly disobedient 'head scratcher' at times, it must be recognized that the science is exceedingly complex and profound. Any idea of having to go back to school because of a theory like this is probably laughable and I consider it to very likely be unnecessary. Having said that: I just feel that if the fundamental constructs can be better understood, certain enigmas will no longer seem enigmatic once the reasons for such behaviors are clear.

In spite of this, I fully intend to give light to some more suspicions of mine as we go along, which might otherwise be seen as a declaration for the dissolution of science as we know it. This however should not be seen to be the case.

I believe that both Fermi level and PEP constraints are a function of quantum level or BBR behavior of fermions which then reflects into higher orders of classical physics. Apart from the Ohm's law-PEP/QIP connection the reasons I believe this still remain somewhat unresolved*. I do suspect that they are probably related to the 'g' and form factors and as I have previously shown, to the laws of the conservation of energies. I also suggest that the atomic valance geometry and atomic and molecular space filling behavior is in many ways related to intra-nucleonic quark orientation geometry, which could be explanatory of the reason that the 1H hydrogen isotope has line, but no band spectra.

*Refer to Light, wave or particle tabs on the neuvophysics.com  website and the quantum physics/mechanics section in the thesis.

 

Also because the notional isospin of both protons and neutrons is the same value it must be the fundamental biracial charge SBF which determines quark orientation with some affect from the electroweak reaction and the g-factor in the QCD lattice. This has more significance when nucleons are bound because of the consequential extreme non linearity (violation) of the biracial charge attractions.

Almost in afterthought: The icosahedral filling arrangement for a helium nucleus shows possibility for two different constructs which by all appearances would be stable. Perhaps the situation is that an alpha particle exhibits one of the possible nucleon matrix constructs which then completely differs from the nucleon arrangement of the helium nucleus proper, which by default would have the other. Either that's the likely case or the alpha particle may be considered to somehow have become mutated into a face centered cubic arrangement by the 'liquid drop' process. Perhaps only 'almost' face centered cubic but possibly in an arrangement whereby it can be ensured that its protons still remain separated. This is not considered probable by the Occam's razor rule.

In the proposed icosa-tetrahedral matrix there are only two possible arrangements in the matrix and they both have differing charge polarization, magnetic fields and binding force. It is currently thought by nuclear physics that the alpha particle is a fully ionized 4He nucleus. However this must be declared to be a specious suggestion, mainly because of the inability of the particle to attract electrons. As well as the model just examined, by G-theory the alpha construct may actually be dimensionally shifted into the 'photos' tensor and hence act more like a boson*.

The reason for this could be as follows:  By this G-theory geometric model only two elemental nuclei are possibly able to exhibit two different filling arrangements. I.e. 4He and 12C. If we accept the evidence that carbon does, then what's to prevent helium? The actual helium nucleus structure is likely to be the preferential arrangement which has only three baryon contact faces because the other possible arrangement (alpha particle) MUST have four to fulfill its noted properties and we have already seen that a nucleon only has three SBF binding points.

*Why an alpha particle exhibits bosonic behavior is unclear although it is the only notional 'isotope' of any nuclide that has such a high baryon contact ratio per nucleon which gives it full integer spin in the standard model but dimensional and binding force properties by mine. It may actually be face centered cubic. This is not disputed.

  It could be that helium being an original fusion component of the early universe may actually consist of alpha neutrons as in the standard neutron model proposed herein. In consideration of the structure of these neutrons under G-theory it would then be impossible for them to undergo beta negative decay to protons and this would then account for their extreme stability; this being further relatable to their stronger binding force. That may also explain the dip in the binding energy (force) curve between 4He and 6Li, which in itself would also seem to be supportive of this proposed model.

 

Apart from the stable 18O isotope, the nucleus that actually does exhibit an almost completely filled first layer is the 20Ne isotope. It only actually comes close as well however: This isotope has two protons in the next layer which leaves two holes in the first. Apart from its full valence shell, this is likely to be another reason why it is even more inert than helium because the outer layer protons are significantly noted to be bound to two neutrons each (which is the most stable binding arrangement) and it would then present a full charge signature to other nucleons. Note: It may be the most stable but it requires a greater force to cause the arrangement in the first place. Consider the production and the variation in stabilities of the greater isotopes of hydrogen.

Although I haven't modeled it yet, a rough calculation puts the next shell filling nucleon number at about 60 which relates to 60Fe*. To create nuclei above this by the addition of another shell takes a mind boggling amount of relative energy. Note: The reason that nucleosynthesis requires a large amount of energy is that in the process, all of the protons are being forced to touch each other as they assimilate into the new higher order matrix. The biracial binding and repulsive force at the femtometer level is incredibly strong.

*Remember that (by this model) a full layer doesn't denote stability because the protons and neutrons are each subject to the laws listed above.

 

It can be noted with even further significance that the complete icosahedral first level shell form can be exactly derived from five 4He isotopes.

It may also be of profound significance that the complete icosahedral shape is equivalent to a 20O isotope. However even though it would appear to be stable; if we allowed that 20 is a 'magical shell number' as per the original 1949 nuclear shell model, we actually find it has too many neutrons to be stable, so four of its neutrons undergo beta negative decay to neon in about twenty seconds which is the much more stable form with two extra strongly bound protons sticking out from the nuclear icosahedron which allows it to form more stable isotopes. Note: the first shell forms a complete icosahedral nucleus.

Of course the gravity/forces and grain fracturing of a nucleonic matrix in the bowels of a supernova would be totally unrelated to current STP binding force constraints and a great quantity of diverse isotopes of matter would have been the initial result in the early stage of such an event. It is still more likely for four weakly bound neutrons to have been ejected to form a stable 16O isotope or better, than for beta decay to occur from 20O. But I guess all sorts of things were possible during such events.

Once modeling is completed for smaller atoms and isotopes, reverse engineering should be able to determine intra-nucleon charge and magnetic polarization data, and hopefully enable modeling of every elemental nucleon space filling matrix. If this proposed model fits then wear it! If not duh! Nice try--- next.

In afterthought: It also appears that layer filling and nucleon shapes may help cause the nodes in electron orbitals. How this actually configures with Hilbert space sets and g-factor vector resolutions is yet to be determined.

A seemingly misplaced note: It may be of interest that a couple of decades ago a prestigious scientific agency proposed: Partial quote: '---the possible existence of some non-perturbative vacuum polarization modifications and the possible existence of some weakly-coupled light SCALAR bosons have been proposed to explain the apparent mu-mesic atom x-ray deviation. (Citation: CERN article of unknown origin.)

This was with regard to a discrepancy noticed in attempts to experiment with the mu-4He (muonic helium) ion. (Emphasis mine)

The Penn. State University web site shows a mu-mesic experiment which is offered to students, which of course purports to show time dilation. Problem: The experiment is not being conducted in a vacuum! The mu-mesic (ions) are traveling through a medium at an assumed speed of ???. See my previous analysis of light traveling in a medium. If it was truly a result that proved relativity then the observed time dilation of 0.11 was out by almost 90%! In any case G-theory suggests that even a vacuum is not empty and the ions would have received extra gravitational (GTDv) energy in any case, which would delay their normal rate of decay by causing an increase in the conservation of energy. Unawareness of competitive phenomenologies could lead to preconceived and notional interpretations of results.

However to their credit they also have an experiment that shows that crystals may have a regular repeating pattern. See how G-theory not only concurs with that, but also arrives at the radical conclusion that most nucleons themselves are arranged in a fairly well defined crystalline order within stable nuclei and it must have taken the phenomenal catalyst of extreme gravity to enable such nucleosynthesis.

To access the associated 'phononic oscillation theory' of atoms ctrl click here.