Preliminary calculations

Opening remarks.

Order of magnitude calculations will reveal whether The Dutch Paradigm assumptions are in line with observed realities.  

The development of the universe up to and including the proton and neutron are in fact deterministic. The Dutch Paradigm assumes an intentional character by design. Such intention is required to be deterministic up to a certain level to allow conscious observers to understand and apply causality. The causalities will become more and more complex and maybe less deterministic. It can well be that these causalities are giving free will a chance to play an independent role – within its free physical space to act.

It is a scientifically challenging job to define mathematical formats that govern the causalities up to and including the formation of the dodecahedrons that will constitute the proton and the neutron. These are not available yet.

Nevertheless, this chapter highlights observations and calculations based on the assumption of deterministic driven events.  

The basic event clock for observation of causalities is the Planck time, with the entities of photons and neutrinos released with electromagnetic manifestations at gamma frequency.

By observations over extremely short distances, we see phenomena that are not in line with classic expectations based on observation and interpretation of events in the macrocosmic world. A subatomic entity cannot lose all of its electrical free energy; there will always be a limited quant of electrical energy left without compensation, what is recognized by regular science as the particle/wave duality. There is the time limit of the  Planck time and dynamic phenomena that follow rules of laws that are difficult to comprehend relatively to what is the macrocosmic “reality.”

Entities propagate at an extremely high speed through the universe. In a restricted and specific space around each entity processes of an electromagnetic nature are active. These manifestations are linked to the entity.  These processes will show certain impacts in this space envelope around the entity. An entity itself is without a spatial extension but makes itself observable through its manifestations. When entities are coming closer towards each other and enter in each others space envelope of influence, processes of repelling and attraction, harmonizing and the like show their existence.

One can observe processes aiming to restore symmetry in the manifestations of the naked entity but also processes as a consequence of interfering in manifestations of each other. With these processes, more complex entities make themselves observable as constructs with macrocosmic effects allowing us to describe these effects in laws of nature. When electrons are merging into protons, we see that an electric phenomenon, “charge” shows its character as a side effect of asymmetry of its electrical manifestations in the construct electron. The same is applicable for the residual effect that we call gravity, the attractive force between entities that show “mass” behavior. As human beings, we observe in this indirect way the existence of all these entities and their constructions.

We visually observe through photon interference in the retina of our eye as well. These photons have frequencies within the bandwidth of visible light. Also, these photons originally emerged at the start of the universe on the gamma frequency, but have reduced in frequency since, due to all kind of encounters with other entities en constructs. One could consider photons as messengers between these observable spatial constructions. Separated from the observer by space, but interconnected by these photonic messengers and entangled. They are messengers that can reveal details of small spatial constructions, but also show large constellations of stars and planets.



The electromagnetic spectrum indicates frequencies and applications.



The energy per photon is in electronvolts. That energy is proportional to the frequency. At a frequency of 2,4 * 10²ᴼ Hz, this is 1 MeV. Gamma-ray is all electromagnetic ray as from approximately 0,2 MeV (at lower frequencies we have the category of Röntgen Rays). Gamma-ray triggered by radioactive decay is under 10 MeV, but in astronomy higher levels of energy are observed.

In linear media, any wave pattern is described as the independent propagation of sinusoidal components. The wavelength λ of a sinusoidal waveform traveling at constant speed v is given byroughcalcul2

Where v is called the phase speed (magnitude of the phase velocity) of the wave and f is the wave’s frequency. In a dispersive medium, the phase speed itself depends upon the frequency of the wave, making the relationship between wavelength and frequency nonlinear.

In the case of electromagnetic radiation—such as light—in free space, the phase speed is the speed of light, about 3×108 m/s.


  1. Impact of free energy

The energy in an electromagnetic manifestation of the entities photon and neutrino comprises:

  1. Free electric energy
  2. Potential energy in the frequent sinusoidal compensation system

The first fraction, the free energy, is the amount of energy as released in the 2nd period of the Big Bang. It is uncompensated by the magnetic compensation.

The second fraction is in the system of frequent conversion of energy from the electric to the magnetic compensation. That is the sinusoidal conversion with the magnetic compensation of the electric energy in backlog. It is comparable to what regular science indicates as the constant annihilation, the antimatter versus matter idea. The energy in the sinusoidal system changes with frequency. Frequency reduction in a construct will induce the transfer of free electric energy to free magnetic energy, the gravitational attraction. The magnetic free component in a construct reflects the history of interferences that had an impact on the free electric energy.

At the origin of this free energy, there was neither a wave nor a frequency phenomenon. Once released, an ejected entity became unable to compensate electric energy anymore. This energy is from then on linked to that entity as free electric, uncompensated energy.  It is at the start of the 3rd period when this sinusoidal retarded annihilation process starts as a reflection of the original virtual causality in which the energy that could impact the entity was in perfect balance, being potential energy only.

We can identify this faction in the electric component of the system as free energy.

That reflects in the relation



 Planck’s constant is also relevant for the TPlanck, some 10⁻⁴⁴ sec SI terms.

Whenever free energy of an entity interferes with other entities, it impacts the compounded magnetic compensation and in case of a construct, also the speed of that construct relative to the speed of light. In some cases, this process is irreversible or almost irreversible when the construct is extremely stable.


  1. Proton/neutron

We can now question what frequencies are relevant for the gluon and neutrinos that are part of electrons and protons. We know reasonably well the dimensions of a proton or neutron and thereby the dimensions of a single dodecahedron.



The size of a neutron is well established as relative to a proton and stated in radii that is available from

The radius of a neutron is 0,895 fm. Through the twin dodecahedron structure, this defines the wavelength of a gluon on a plane of the dodecahedron.

1 femtometer is 1fm=10ˉ¹⁵ meter. The size of the twin dodecahedron structure is then estimated to be 2* 0,895=1,79 fm. The length of the standing wave of the gluon is equal to the perimeter of a face of the dodecahedron and is therefore approximately 2 fm. The gluon will continue at the speed of light while circling the face of the dodecahedron as part of the original electron being one of the constituents.

The frequency related to this wavelength is f=v/λ or f=3*10⁸/2*10ˉ¹⁵= 1,5*10²³ Hz.

The ” mass” of a neutron is 939,565378MeV/c², so free energy up to 939,6 MeV is converted in additional magnetic compensation.

The free energy still available for further encounters is following out of the equation

 E=hf    being   E=4,135.10⁻¹⁵.1,5.10²³=6,20.10⁸ eV=620 MeV

related to the constituents of 24 gluons and 23 neutrinos.

So, the reduction in free energy per single entity of 47 is 939,6/48= 19,6 MeV. That translates into an estimate for the original starting frequency as per period 3.

This starting frequency will be approximately proportional higher with a factor of (620+ 19,6)/620= 1,03.

That makes a start frequency of 1,54.10²³ Hz.



The mass of a neutrino is assumed to be there, but very small:


The Standard Model of particle physics assumed that neutrinos are massless. However the experimentally established phenomenon of neutrino oscillation, which mixes neutrino flavour states with neutrino mass states (analogously to CKM mixing), requires neutrinos to have nonzero masses. Massive neutrinos were originally conceived by Bruno Pontecorvo in the 1950s. Enhancing the basic framework to accommodate their mass is straightforward by adding a right-handed Lagrangian. This can be done in two ways. If, like other fundamental Standard Model particles, mass is generated by the Dirac mechanism, then the framework would require a SU(2) singlet. This particle would have no other Standard Model interactions (apart from the Yukawa interactions with the neutral component of the Higgs doublet), so is called a sterile neutrino. Or, mass can be generated by the Majorana mechanism, which would require the neutrino and antineutrino to be the same particle.

The strongest upper limit on the masses of neutrinos comes from cosmology: the Big Bang model predicts that there is a fixed ratio between the number of neutrinos and the number of photons in the cosmic microwave background. If the total energy of all three types of neutrinos exceeded an average of 50 eV per neutrino, there would be so much mass in the universe that it would collapse. This limit can be circumvented by assuming that the neutrino is unstable; however, there are limits within the Standard Model that make this difficult. A much more stringent constraint comes from a careful analysis of cosmological data, such as the cosmic microwave background radiation, galaxy surveys, and the Lyman-alpha forest. These indicate that the summed masses of the three neutrino varieties must be less than 0.3 eV.

In 1998, research results at the Super-Kamiokande neutrino detector determined that neutrinos can oscillate from one flavor to another, which requires that they must have a nonzero mass. While this shows that neutrinos have mass, the absolute neutrino mass scale is still not known. This is because neutrino oscillations are sensitive only to the difference in the squares of the masses. The best estimate of the difference in the squares of the masses of mass eigenstates 1 and 2 was published by KamLAND in 2005: Δm221 = 0.000079 eV2. In 2006, the MINOSexperiment measured oscillations from an intense muon neutrino beam, determining the difference in the squares of the masses between neutrino mass eigenstates 2 and 3. The initial results indicate |Δm2
32| = 0.0027 eV2, consistent with previous results from Super-Kamiokande. Since |Δm2
32| is the difference of two squared masses, at least one of them has to have a value which is at least the square root of this value. Thus, there exists at least one neutrino mass eigenstate with a mass of at least 0.04 eV.

In 2009 lensing data of a galaxy cluster were analyzed to predict a neutrino mass of about 1.5 eV. All neutrino masses are then nearly equal, with neutrino oscillations of order meV. They lie below the Mainz-Troitsk upper bound of 2.2 eV for the electron antineutrino. The latter will be tested in 2015 in the KATRIN experiment, that searches for a mass between 0.2 eV and 2 eV.

A number of efforts are under way to directly determine the absolute neutrino mass scale in laboratory experiments. The methods applied involve nuclear beta decay (KATRIN and MARE) or neutrinoless double beta decay 

On 31 May 2010, OPERA researchers observed the first tau neutrino candidate event in a muon neutrino beam, the first time a transformation in neutrinos had been observed, giving evidence that they have mass.

In July 2010 the 3-D MegaZ DR7 galaxy survey reported that they had measured a limit of the combined mass of the three neutrino varieties to be less than 0.28 eV. A tighter upper bound yet for this sum of masses, 0.23 eV, was reported in March 2013 by the Planck collaboration.

If the neutrino is a Majorana particle, the mass can be calculated by finding the half life of neutrinoless double-beta decay of certain nuclei. The lowest upper limit, on the Majorana mass of the neutrino, has been set by EXO-200 140–380 meV

A photon has free energy, E, that is proportional to its frequency, f, by


h=4.135 667 516 * 10ˉ¹⁵ eVs

It is likely that a neutrino has a similar amount of free energy. However, this free energy has only limited possibilities to interact with other entities with electromagnetic manifestations.

There is no clear understanding whether a neutrino has mass. Reports indicate a neutrino has a mass equivalent with E values between 0,04 eV up to 2,5 eV. 

Note: It is remarkable, that this reduction in frequency is comparable to the frequencies of visible light. Visible light has an energy content of 1,68 eV – 3,26 eV and this ΔE for neutrinos is ranging from 0,04 – 2,5 eV.

That implies that the electron and the proton oscillate at frequencies in the range of visible light.



The “invariant mass” of an electron is  0,510998928 MeV/c². The related energy content of this invariant mass is 0,510998928 MeV. That is the free energy equivalent transferred to mass while reducing the frequencies of the free electric manifestations and the electromagnetic system of the two entities that merged into the electron.

The assumption is an equal transfer of energy by both constituents. The difference in frequency for the gluon and the neutrino is still there.

For each of the two constituents, a portion of 0,5*0,510998928 MeV transfers into an active free magnetic compensation, with a reduction in speed relative to the speed of light.

If we compare this with the reduction of the free energy of electrons as bound in the dodecahedron, then we see 19,6 MeV compared with 0,255 MeV. That implies a frequency reduction factor for each constituent of an electron relative to the starting conditions of (620+0,255)/620= 1,0004.

If we assume that the highest frequency observed for gamma rays is valid for the initial frequency, then this forming of an electron has induced a reduction of the frequency of the gluon and neutrino. This reduction is to approximately 1,533.10²³ Hz. That reduction is rather limited compared to the start frequency of 1,54.10²³, all in metrics of the SI system.

There is no clear understanding about the size or spatial representation of the electron.

The difference between the amalgamation of the constituents in a naked electron, compared with the electron in a naked neutron, is in the order of magnitude of 939/(47*0,5)=40 in extended spatial representation.  Without jumping to conclusions, it is noticeable that there are no major discrepancies in order of magnitudes relative to the accepted values of the properties of these constructs.



The forming of the dodecahedron is a dramatic development in the events of emerging constructs after the Big Bang. Some observations trigger additional assumptions.

  1. What triggers the absence of Coulomb’s repelling forces of the electric charges of the electrons in the dodecahedron?

The two gluons (=gamma photons) on opposite planes neutralize the asymmetric electric manifestations. Vectors point in the opposite direction on opposite faces. The vectors illustrate the directional sensitivity of the electrical manifestations. That gives rise to the assumption that also the Coulomb force is directionally sensitive as well. The characteristics of the electric free energy as well as the manifestation by exerting forces of the asymmetrical electrical manifestation show similarities.  

  1. Compensation of the ½ spin manifestations

When two neutrinos are spiraling oppositely, they compensate for each ½ spin behavior. In naked form, this would annihilate the electron/positron combination as on the two opposite faces.

  1. Free magnetic manifestation is monopolar

The free magnetic manifestations are not neutralizing while on opposite faces. That is due to the monopolar character of the free magnetic manifestation. The base of its origin is the monopolar magnetic manifestation of the neutrino of the electron on each face. Being monopolar, it can only add the manifestational impact, never subtract. Therefore, the neutrino is essential in each construct to provide the monopolar magnetic manifestation to build up what is known as the gravitational force. It has similarities with the asymmetry of the electrical manifestation as started with the construct electron.