CHAPTER 17

 

 

      ATOMIC DNA

  • THE DYNAMIC BEHAVIOR OF ATOMS--------------------------------636
  • A FACT FITTING THEORETICAL MODEL OF THE-----------------640

CRYSTALLINE MATRIX STRUCTURE OF NUCLEI

 

 

 

Now we come to a perhaps obvious question: What causes dimensional positioning of quark lattices in nucleons?

To answer that question, I am not exactly sure of the mechanics but I suspect it has to do with quark eigenvector relationships causing elemental and molecular properties. I will postulate a description of atomic activity as follows.

The first thing to be noted is that quarks are proposed to be 'flattish' and triangular with the three color charge points at the vertices.

Now; different atoms exhibit differing Hilbert space set* interference patterns that sometimes extend beyond the outer electron orbital. This results in many and various electron orbital and internal force arrangements and interactions. Different nucleons exhibit differences in frequency phase shift variations due to eigenvector changes in the orientation of their quarks in effective relationship with the overall nucleon frequency which results in individually relative form factors, and by extension this affects their unique multi-dimensional presence in one particular aspect.

This remains common to any elemental atomic structure and is able to be transferred in whole or in part to other atomic objects by atomic bonding as the case may be, and the determinant of volatility and inertness is the electron outer shell filling. However the crystalline structure of elements and molecules is determined by the nuclear matrix filling structure which affects the electron shell nodes.

*I may be using Hilbert space as a loose term to describe a limited space with periodic and aperiodic wave sets which exist in a very small space, proposed to be not much larger than an individual atom and they are counter affected by electron orbitals. The combined quark lattice orientation with electron orbitals determines the reach of the sets which relates mot particularly to electro-negativity/positivity.

 

Crystalline elements and molecular structures larger than nucleon matrices would likely be typically periodic and this strange departure from the lower fundamental matrix form will be explained later. Note: Quasi-crystalline forms are an anomaly but are definitely allowable because of the aperiodicity in wave sets as described above.

 

These quark lattice eigenvector shifts also cause vibrating, strengthening and weakening of the internal force fields, sometimes even canceling them out by null node affects at orbital junctures. This results in the determinability of multiplex dimensional states within nucleons. (Particularly protons)

Neutrons are not affected by the charge-field dimension because they are charge neutral, and so their quark eigenstate positional possibilities may well be limited to a single eigenvector shift capability in one direction along a static Hamiltonian. I.e. in the Euclidian sense, their quark cartesian plane can either turn or flip but not tilt.

This probably does have an affect on the overall atom by (I suspect) setting the element melting, boiling points and density. This would be caused by eos, gravitos and magnos effects as the neutron quark interacts with neighboring quarks. This is pressure related because pressure 'squeezes' the atom and causes changes in the inter-quark relationships.

Properties such as color, hardness, density etc are thought to be caused by the infinitely variable but quanta stepped eigenspace transformations available to the proton quarks, by charge-field, force-field and magnos affects. These properties are defined by particulate orientation and vibration (spin moments?) values at STP in relation to other near-field nucleons in the case of atoms with more than one nucleon. A lone 1H proton only directly affects itself (electron disregarded).

It must be realized that neutrons have an affect on atomic DNA mainly because of the affect of their magnetic dipole g-factor and effective 'mass' which results in the 'kinetic isotope effect' on the whole nuclide in such cases.

Protons are then able to be determined to be either in or out of any given dimension by one factor alone; the eigenstate of their quark orientation (I.e. g versus form factor orientational relationship), which could be related to the 'spin' or more likely the turn axis.

This is one aspect of atomic DNA. This is all concluded regardless of the spatial eigenvector state of the whole atom or object. In actualizing the whole DNA the eos also reads* the relative neutron quark orientation (which as we saw before) also contributes to some properties because the neutron is in the eos and gravitos dimension and not the charge-field. Note: This is all being referenced to STP.

*The eos is not alive or intelligent. This is purely by multiplicity law mechanics.

 

Chemical properties are known to be caused by electron behavior, but (disregarding the shared effects of other bonded or adjacent atoms) it must be understood that the number and activity of electrons is a determination made by the DNA of nucleons (specifically protons) in any particular nuclide.

The eos reads the eigenvector relationship between protons and neutrons at the surface of an AMO, and this is seen as part of the DNA. Nucleon arrangement in a nucleus is stable and consistent with the element. Isotopic addition of extra neutrons doesn't upset the basic arrangement, and the properties of the element don't change significantly. The actual eigenspace position with respect to the proton neutron sets can also cause further variation of properties. This can be caused by the introduction of external charge and magnetic influences. Temperature and pressure changes cause variations also, by determining the number of charge particles within the quark lattice, ostensibly resulting in color transformations.

Now a quark is simply a core particle existing in any given dimension with the relative component sub-particles having variance and variability with regard to both vibration frequency and orientation (of the whole lattice in summation), which is the cause of both magnetic dipoles and charge signs. This along with a tetrahedral nucleon form allows the nuclear matrices to be able to be aperiodic, which results in variant band gaps and Fermi levels in electron orbitals, with other properties determined by atomic number etc. Note: Deep inelastic scattering only applies to resident bosons within the quark lattice and not the quark boson fundamental particles themselves.

I should address the nature of the interference patterns within Hilbert sets which are caused by the variable frequency interactions of all of the nucleons within any given nucleus. The 'set' form data propagates instantaneously as they are considered to be caused by a fundamental biracial force effect, and it is only the speed of vibrating bosons propagating at 'c' (per Maxwell) which causes the apparent propagation of the higher order electrostatic and magnetic fields at 'c'.

Under magnetic and electric charge influences, the charge-field, and force-field dimensional affects have little effect on the atomic properties because they cause insignificant though proportional effects on the eigenvector angles because of the far greater strength of the extremely powerful intrinsic near-field biracial charge forces which circumvent them.

The Hilbert space interference pattern sets which carry the magnetic g-factor and form factor which contribute to make up electron orbital interactive electro-negativity/positivity are caused by the function of the nucleonic arrangements within the elemental atom, which because it is fundamentally biracial force it only has a limited ability to be affected by external electromagnetic influences at around STP. Note: Real world magnetism of metals is only subjectively strong. It is just the observance of a very small g-factor shift in individual nucleons. It is nowhere near capable of exhibiting the Paschen-Back affect or causing diamagnetism.

As I previously mentioned, the addition of 'tacked on or lost' isotopic neutrons has little effect as they are not effectively bound* and they also tend to be unstable. But just remove or add one 'bound' neutron whereby the interacting nucleon arrangement becomes changed, and you will observe drastic changes in the properties of an atom. This can usually only occur at elevated extremes of temperature and pressure.

*TBE

 

However it is assumed with good reason that even though the neutron quarks only exists in one extra dimension*,  a neutron is still able to be affected by extreme near-field affects which gives it the ability to interact with proton quarks lattices and may thus cause them to dimensionally shape shift. This is also further enhanced by SBF gluon positioning which is in turn determined by the atomic nucleon matrix structure. The properties of the elements or molecules are due to the direct inelastic tension of the combined eigenstate values of all the forces that are at work, mainly within the proton quark lattices in any given nucleus.

*All nuclei have protons which must exist in the first four dimensions as well as the eos, magnos and electros. Other dimensional shifts are determined by functions as already stated. Any nucleus without a neutron is condemned to include the photos as its only other extra dimensional state capability other than the dimensions just mentioned. Quark-antiquark dimensional status will be analyzed shortly.

 

Now we can conclude that the complete atomic DNA consists of interference or quasi-harmonic near-field force patterns by protons and to a lesser extent quark eigenvector states and vibrational orientation, amplitude, frequency and phase relationships at the near-field and extreme near-field level. Apart from BBR, nothing in an atom occurs in a linear fashion. It always occurs with well defined instantaneous steps which are causative of quanta and sub quanta integer steps in electron orbitals.

At STP this all seems to have left the poor little ol' electron off the hook as far as the DNA goes. This is actually true to some extent because the electron is only proactive with internal and external; atomic influences. However I won't wait with bated breath for chemical bonding of ions to occur.

I must admit that with multi-dimensional behavior, much work needs to be done in analyzing Pauli Exclusion Principle extensions and preclusions within multiplex dimensional arrangements, in that; some sub-particles are able to occupy the same space time within a quark lattice or quantum boson and may be excluded from any PEP determinations between dimensions whatsoever. Even though the relativistic argument requires various time shifts to allow such phenomenology, and because I have already argued the case, I'm not 'going there' in this analysis for the moment!

By way of a further conclusion; I would suggest that biracial charge field and magnos dynamic interference sets, as well as gluon arrangements are responsible for crystalline and magnetic dipole structure, elasticity, plasticity, hardness, and every other property apart from changes introduced by the external environment, other than isotopic and ionization affects as well as chemical bonding. Covalent or mechanical (amalgamic) bonding of similar elemental atoms would be thought to have no affect on the properties of the element at any size level.

The main hardwire construct for atomic DNA is concluded to be the space filling matrix which is (in the non isotopic sense) the same for every nucleus of similar elemental atoms.


 

 

 

 

THE DYNAMIC BEHAVIOR OF NUCLEONS:

 

 

By way of some iteration: A quark is envisioned to be a triangular flattish planar fermion* with a small (but real) three dimensional shape. I.e. a flattish polygon. The quark exists simultaneously within a 'dimensionally shifted' magnetic dipole 'containment' structure. The dipole/s is able to move spatially in any orientation within a nucleon without causing any affect on the eigenvector or value of the quark plane even though multi-dimensionally occupying the same space time. It also has no effect on the gluons which are residents of the eos/comos and their SBF is only perturbative in nature. The neutron quark eigenstate is thought to be (mostly) static because it has nil resultant charge value and would in that case not exist in the charge field dimension. It does however contain a normal magnetic dipole/s in the magnos.

*The quark lattice itself is not a fermion. It exists under B-E or 'G' statistics.

 

The reach of Hilbert state interference sets is conditionally able to extend beyond the outer orbitals in certain atoms as the case may be. This can make them very reactive (and we can note an example in the oxygen atom), or totally inert if the 'set' terminates at or within the outer orbital. This feature, along with electron filling, results in the capacity or not for chemical bonding of atoms and is responsible for electro negativity. This phenomenology may be further affected by phase relationships.

Quarks (and a proton's quark in particular), can be oriented in any direction with quantized color transformability. They are even able to rotate around their central axis a full 360 degrees, and may even spin/vibrate. Thus I will not allow that rotational spin is a function of particle vibrations within a quark matrix in any cases. This vibration mechanics is all caused by interference pattern force effects in the extreme near-field and as physical actions instigated under the auspices of the autocratic dimension/s and re-energized by graviton transitions. Note: It must be remembered that in atoms, the g-factor component of a quark's 'spin' would not be transferable to the magnetic dipole of any other dimensionally diverse particles and visa versa.

Quark color transformations would be caused by the addition or subtraction of individual bosons in and out of the lattice* which in order to do so must be according to F-D statistics at the event horizon of the lattice. This would account for integer stepped behavior attributed to color states. Note: It is outside the limits of my speculation to determine which bosons cause temperature and which cause color charge.

*If linear additions are made by the addition of trions (as analogue particle value systems by reception from BBR or conditionally from gravitons) then no quark color change would be noted. From this we can draw the conclusion that QCD is not proportional to nuclear temperature changes.

 

I have previously described the God code which covers several physical parameters. This is obviously part of a larger code which if you analyze the dimensional capabilities beyond the first four, you may see the possibly of an eight bit digital code with respect to other fundamental but non chemical elemental atomic properties.

If we can recognize the elemental asymmetry within atoms which is caused by the non symmetrical bi-racial quark charges, we should then be able to conclude that this is the cause of the aperiodic symmetry of the interacting Hilbert space sets producing the dynamic charge and magnetic fields as well as gluon extreme near-field bonding force effects. A 1H atom then would be concluded to have a lopsided orbital which would actually give it a net spatial charge differential.

An alpha particle can cause damage to atoms in human tissue. This is theorized to be basically caused by the fact that it has no electron orbitals and I suggest it would exude a Hilbert set interference pattern which is 180 degrees out of phase with respect to that of a helium nucleus. This effectively annuls the shielding effect of the 'tissue' atom's orbitals and it goes right on through other atomic orbitals without even collecting any electrons, even though it might knock some around a bit! Because of this it would be easily able to reach the atomic nucleus and further, because of its kinetic nucleonic interference capability it would be able to severely upset the properties of the atom, which in turn would affect its atomic bonds which can then destroy molecular arrangements in a biological cell. It remains free to roam (bounce) from atom to atom and so wreaking havoc. This could possibly explain its supposed ability to tunnel out of the mother AMO.

The following may have technological significance: If a way could be found to (re-phase) alpha particles back to helium ion phase status, they could then attract electrons and turn back into helium atoms and consequently become inert. It may be that the nucleon bond arrangement has become physically distorted relative to that of a helium atom, and this will be analyzed shortly. Imagine if alpha particles could be injected into a tumor and then reconverted to helium nuclei when the job was done! However I haven't yet heard of such a thing as a phial of alpha particles!

You can also see how high speed 'neutral neutrons' and probably to a lesser extent alpha particles are able to travel right through the electron orbitals and drive a 'wedge' into a nucleus and split it, and we know this is the simplistic explanation of the cause of fission. Of course in more stable atoms, and depending on their kinetic energy, the neutrons may be able to either tack on or pass right on by as the case may be.

In order for scientists to be able to fulfill the alchemist's dream of element conversion (apart from reductions such as by fission), they would have to (apart from gathering the required chemical building blocks) need an extreme near-field 'electro-bond biracial force' radiation and not an emr. Unfortunately up to the present and at STP there is no known way to externally derive such radiation.

We see this in the fusing of hydrogen to helium. However this only occurs at very high temperatures and/or pressures. If we could strip all of the electrons from a very large number of nuclei we could have a 'tool' to work with.

Ionization of atoms is a common occurrence, it requires a force large enough to change the Hilbert set phase by changing the internal nucleon factors and this is usually achieved by appointing a great deal of heat. I am referring to the ionization of a relatively large object and if such cold be achieved we would probably consider such an object as being very unstable. The other problem is that to get at the target nucleus we need to prevent the re assimilation of electrons. This may sound like a great dilemma, but it may be possible at extremes of temperature while the eos is 'on vacation'.

If this phase change is deemed to occur in alpha articles, then we might well ask; why not in whole atoms with larger nuclei? Even if such a thing were to be achieved, the problem then of course is, how to keep the nuclei and the 'new' AMO together without electrons. This may someday be possible with superconductor magnetic fields, yet without that then at the extremely high temperatures in the other direction required to perform the task, such a process is going to require some serious insulation!

If such a material can be created in the laboratory, we may then have a tool to enable room temperature (but temporary) fusion to occur. However confinement of such material at the temperature currently required, as well as process control appears to be very problematical. Note: I didn't use the word impossible!

Can you imagine a lump of matter without electrons? (Not neutronium) Well imagine away, because contrary to the popular saying, I reckon it's imagination and not necessity which is the true mother of invention.

I may be having some sort of 'aufenhalt' in fantasy land and perhaps partially or even totally incorrect in my postulations, (which is up to you to judge and even correct). However this example shows that by delving deeper into the mechanics of atoms, imaginations can be simulated, and if there is any outcome of positive value to be realized; it is exactly that.

In the end you could pass this all off by concluding that relativity is 'messing' with space/time, while multiplicity is 'messing' with space. I would suggest that both can be utilized in an attempt to arrive at meaning, and rather than doggedly adhering to just one model, let either be conditionally utilized as necessary. However if the case for the superiority of a particular theory arises because of empirical scientific method being applied, may the model which is a better fit to the observations and legal obedience to the laws of physics be staunchly defended to the possibility of the dis-accreditation of the other.


 

 

 

 

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 also the Afbau principle of nucleon filling.   

 

This model builds on the nuclear shell model of Wigner Jensen and Goeppert-Mayer. However it deviates in the fundamental basic understanding 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 can be shown to almost exactly equate to the site-ing geometry for hydrogen atoms (abot 104 degrees 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 109.47o.  This would be because of magnetic dipole shifts in the various nuclei.

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 120o 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 fro 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 ain that shell. This is a model fitting fact.

Silicon has six protons equally spaced in its  second shell which perfectly relates to the 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 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.

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 turns up two 109.5o 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 90o separation.

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 fill or shape differences.

 We should be able to understand that depending on atomic number and isotopic status, different nuclides   also  will 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---

http://neuvophysics.com/index.php?p=1_52