Nucleus

The test for building more complex baryons was by linking protons and neutrons into a chain. The next step is testing 3D.

The nucleus of deuterium:

 

It provided the first indication of how to apply the method of adding and subtracting the contributions of spin and electric vectors from various binding and compounded faces to achieve an overall assessment of the specific nucleus.

The next check was about the nucleus of tritium:

 

 

subsequent for the nucleus of Helium-4:

 

The conclusion was that this represents a potentially powerful method for modeling the nuclei, aligning with expectations for the electric and spin characteristics of these nuclei.

However, there are a few remarks to be made:

1. It is highly unlikely that more complex nuclei will form up as a kind of a stick
2. It becomes unclear from which proton or neutron a twin dodecahedron is composed

We have to rethink the building principles to address issue 1. Issue 2 is not a problem; it only gives additional possibilities to make more complex constructs.

We need to acknowledge that dodecahedrons have 12 faces. The β-decay caused a specific reorganization resulting in the availability of twin dodecahedrons, each with four distinct types of individual face compositions:

1. An electron
2. An electron with an additional gamma photon
3. A gamma photon 
4. Empty

All dodecahedrons oscillate in full synchronization, as explained in the chapter on inertia.

To achieve a more evenly distributed arrangement of the twin dodecahedrons in the nuclei, we can consider stacking the spheres closely, similar to the close-packing of equal spheres. It makes sense to assume that the dodecahedrons are arranged in a hexagonal close-packing. The hexagonal close-packing for dodecahedrons requires some spatial adjustment to make a reasonable fit. Reasonable, because dodecahedrons do not allow a perfect fit.

An example of a configuration in close-packing for dodecahedrons is in this 3D print:

Hexagonal close packing offers the highest packing density for spheres, featuring a kissing number of 12 for each sphere. This kissing number corresponds to the number of faces on a dodecahedron. There is a wealth of theoretical background on close packing that is pertinent to the formation of crystals and foam bubbles, such as the Weaire-Phelan structure. As a result, the mathematics underlying these structures is well-established.

Since we do not fully understand how these nuclei have formed in the universe, we can only try to reconstruct potential outcomes based on our knowledge of the Periodic Table of Elements. When we create a 3D arrangement of dodecahedrons, the faces that are parallel and orthogonal are likely candidates for proton bonding.

The electric vectors of these proton bonds per axis must point in the same direction to be neutral to the outside world. They are allowed to be configured parallel to one of the three axes of the Euclidean system.

As long as we maintain symmetry for all opposite faces – excluding the proton bonds – this will be helpful in constructing more complex nuclei. It is obvious that when the dodecahedrons do not perfectly stack, this is an issue that must and will be addressed in the further explanation of The Dutch Paradigm.

The remainder of the dodecahedron functionality has two basic functions:

1. To allow building up parallel faces in three axes for the proton bounds to be stacked
2. To ‘glue’ the dodecahedrons together

The second issue requires several mixes of possible faces on single dodecahedrons.

The adjacent faces of the kissing dodecahedrons can be modified based on the indicated available combinations:

1. An electron
2. An electron with an additional gamma photon
3. A gamma photon
4. Empty

Preparing this for all elements in the Periodic Table is a significant amount of work, but it is an achievable task that allows for the development of an algorithm.

The choices made for this build-up require additional gamma photons, neutrinos, and the like, but that will, in essence, not have a major impact on the mass manifestation of the nucleus.

The impact on the manifestation of mass of a proton bond is limited:

Neutron  :            939.565378(21) MeV/c²

Proton     :            938.272046(21) MeV/c²

As can be seen, there is no significant impact when adding proton and neutron bonds the ‘mass’ of a proton or neutron. Additional gamma photons and neutrinos also pose no problem. We only need to be a bit more cautious with electrons.

It is quite feasible that these building principles for the nuclei are the major drivers for the more complex nuclei.