# A Structured Nucleus: An Energy-centic Approach

#### InnerSpace

Registered Member
Conventional Science represents the nucleus as being unstructured: just a random grouping of spherical protons and neutrons. What are the implications of a structured nucleus?

Here is a pdf overview of an energy-centric approach to atomic structure. It is a copy of this PowerPoint presentation.

It starts at the preon level to build quarks; then nucleons; then atoms. However, it also explores the implications for electricity and light - links are provided to the more detailed publications.

The ball is in your court for comment.

Very interesting. I believe the nucleus is ordered by Einsteinian curvatures bases on a zero point particles. With that theory it is also possible to understand the working of the nucleus. Good way of researching, go on!

Very interesting. I believe the nucleus is ordered by Einsteinian curvatures bases on a zero point particles. With that theory it is also possible to understand the working of the nucleus. Good way of researching, go on!

STEM could be another curved ball, although without the prestige of Einstein. I hope you check out some of the detail.

Conventional Science represents the nucleus as being unstructured
It doesn't.

Nuclei have quantised energy levels and a complex structure, comparable to electronic energy levels.
The ball is in your court for comment.
Can you please summarise the main idea(s) of the theory in a paragraph or two? I won't bother reading the .pdf without some kind of abstract of the main ideas.
Very interesting. I believe the nucleus is ordered by Einsteinian curvatures bases on a zero point particles.
What led you to believe that?

What does ordering by Einsteinian curvatures mean? How do you go about ordering curvatures? What ordinal value are you using?
With that theory it is also possible to understand the working of the nucleus.
Sounds great!

What specific experimental results does the theory explain? Got a link to a peer-reviewed paper explaining how the theory applies?

The axiom is that the most elementary particle in existence is the dimensional basic (db). The db itself has no dimensions (no length, no width and no height). The db is found everywhere in the universe and is always moving through spacetime, where the speed of the movement of the db, in respect to its surroundings, can have any value. The curvature of space on the location of the db is infinite while time on the location of the db stands still. The behaves like a black hole without dimensions. The db is the building block of all that we perceive. The formula for the extent of spacetime curvature around a is: √(^2 + ^2 + ^2 ) × = 1 (0) In the formula: x, y, z, are coordinates in spacetime [m], Kr = curvature [m-1 ]. Formula (0) describes the relative lessened extent of curvature of spacetime surrounding the . In the formula the distance from a specific point in spacetime to the db is always greater than zero. Through agglomeration, or rather joint interaction, the -particles form phenomena that at a certain moment rise above the observational limit. The db itself exists below the observational limit and so it cannot directly be demonstrated. The distance between the various db's varies in time by movements relative to each other. The directions of movements are being influenced by one another according to gravitational laws. The movement paths are being optically influenced for the outside observer by the curvatures of spacetime caused by the db's themselves. This means that time slows down while relative space around a becomes smaller when the s are approaching each other. Time speeds up and relative space around a becomes larger when the s go from one another. The is different than other particles in that respect that other particles consist out of multiple db's while the itself is a singular particle. Each is a singularity (infinite curvature) on itself while other particles than the are a combination of multiple s and thus a system of multiple singularities. The observed forces (strong, electromagnetic, weak and gravitation) have the same origin. The cause of these forces are because of the characteristics of a singular db. The observed forces are in fact a sum of complex circular movements that come to exist when multiple db's interact with each other.

I find the abstract assertion that 'The db itself has no dimensions (no length, no width and no height)' to be untenable; and time in Spacetime seems replaced by db.

The spherical electron looks like an inverted (upside down) positron, and vice versa, because there is no chirality. The field-energy of the STEM equivalents are toroidal in form and have chirality.

The quark structure has an equilateral triangular shape, which is the Standard Model interpretation. The STEM version is a right-angled isosceles shape, which leads to a structured nucleus for atoms.

Electromagnetic field patterns look okay.

So, I find the article innovative and interesting. However, I prefer the more pragmatic approach of STEM that can explain so much with the only abstract assertion being the toroidal form of concentrated energy.

Can you please summarise the main idea(s) of the theory in a paragraph or two? I won't bother reading the .pdf without some kind of abstract of the main ideas.

STEM is an energy-centric approach. It is based upon the hypothesis there is only one type of energy, with electric and magnetic fields considered to consist of the same type of field-energy, but with different flow patterns. The Spin Torus Energy Model(STEM) is an approach to atomic structure that is significantly different from the conventional Science orbital atomic model as currently supported by the Standard Model and Quantum Mechanics.

I might add that the pdf file referenced is a copy of a PowerPoint presentation. Thus, it is not overly wordy or complicated. It contains references to publications (basically 4) with more detailed discussions.

Nuclei have quantised energy levels and a complex structure, comparable to electronic energy levels.

I have never seen references supporting this concept. Can you provide them?

Why not try the references cited in the Wikipedia article, to start with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_nucleus#Nuclear_models

The provided Wikipedia reference states 'There are however problems with the shell model when an attempt is made to account for nuclear properties well away from closed shells. This has led to complex post hoc distortions of the shape of the potential well to fit experimental data,'

Nucleon orbitals within electron orbitals are enough to make my head spin. I believe in the KISS principle and shave with Occam's razor.

Conventional Science represents the nucleus as being unstructured: just a random grouping of spherical protons and neutrons. What are the implications of a structured nucleus?
That's sort of a meaningless question since the nucleus of an atom DOES have structure and is not just a random grouping of spheres.
Nucleon orbitals within electron orbitals are enough to make my head spin.
Well there's an approach you can take then! Learn more about the structure of the nucleus - THEN come up with a new theory that explains what we observe better than existing models.

The provided Wikipedia reference states 'There are however problems with the shell model when an attempt is made to account for nuclear properties well away from closed shells. This has led to complex post hoc distortions of the shape of the potential well to fit experimental data,'

Nucleon orbitals within electron orbitals are enough to make my head spin. I believe in the KISS principle and shave with Occam's razor.
Well, read about this and learn, then. Ockham's razor only says you should not introduce unnecessary entities. Non sunt multiplicanda entia sine necessitate, or words to that effect. In science terms, a model should be no more complicated than needed to explain the observations. But, by the same token, if it is too simple to account for the observations, it is not complicated enough!

γ-ray emission is attributed to a nucleus dropping to a lower energy state from an excited state, generally one it is formed in as a result of a previous decay process. So it is rather analogous to electronic excited states in atoms, but involving much higher energies. You ought in fact to expect a shell structure, given that nucleons are fermions and so ought to occupy successive energy levels, rather than all crowding together into one level.

The passage you highlight does indeed indicate that the science of the nucleus is far from a complete model. This is unsurprising, in view of the extreme energies needed to study it. But it is not true to say that there is no model for the structure of the nucleus, or that it is "random".

It is not good science to put forward your own model without researching first what models may already exist: it makes you look a bit of a dick. But no matter, at least now you know, so that's progress.

γ-ray emission is attributed to a nucleus dropping to a lower energy state from an excited state, generally one it is formed in as a result of a previous decay process. So it is rather analogous to electronic excited states in atoms, but involving much higher energies. You ought in fact to expect a shell structure, given that nucleons are fermions and so ought to occupy successive energy levels, rather than all crowding together into one level.

The passage you highlight does indeed indicate that the science of the nucleus is far from a complete model. This is unsurprising, in view of the extreme energies needed to study it. But it is not true to say that there is no model for the structure of the nucleus, or that it is "random".

The statement 'γ-ray emission is attributed to a nucleus dropping to a lower energy state from an excited state etc.' in no way leads to or supports 'it is not true to say that there is no model for the structure of the nucleus, or that it is "random"'

It is not good science to put forward your own model without researching first what models may already exist: it makes you look a bit of a dick. But no matter, at least now you know, so that's progress.

From one dick to another, how quick you judge with so little information.

I would suggest that you have not read the original reference to the STEM overview, let alone follow up any of the provided links to more detailed coverage.

While I find it interesting to check out the pet theories of others, I would really like feedback about the highly unconventional STEM approach. Informed feedback is welcomed. Dickhead comments are not.

come up with a new theory that explains what we observe better than existing models.

The purpose of this post was to draw attention to the STEM model that claims to explain 'what we observe better than existing models'.

So how well or poorly does the STEM approach explain what we observe? How do its explanations stack up? That is the discussion that I would like to see.

From one dick to another, how quick you judge with so little information.

I would suggest that you have not read the original reference to the STEM overview, let alone follow up any of the provided links to more detailed coverage.

While I find it interesting to check out the pet theories of others, I would really like feedback about the highly unconventional STEM approach. Informed feedback is welcomed. Dickhead comments are not.
I've found the 2019 paper. This is published in a SCIRP publication, which is an organisation on Beall's List of potentially predatory journals. So it at first glance looks like vanity publishing on the part of the author, without peer review.

I notice a very inauspicious start, which seems to treat energy as a substance. This betrays a basic lack of understanding of physics, right at the outset.

Worse, it then goes on to refer to astrological [sic] objects. Astrology is the pseudoscience of fortune telling from the stars, horoscopes etc.

So after a couple of paragraphs, it becomes clear that it is not worth reading further. This is a crank paper from someone who doesn't understand physics. We get a lot of these here.

The author is said to be a retired IT lecturer called David Johnson. Mr Johnson needs to go back to school and learn a bit of physics, before proposing models of the atomic nucleus.

But, one quick test, in case I am misjudging, how does this STEM model account for the gyromagnetic ratio of the electron?

Last edited:
at first glance looks like vanity publishing on the part of the author, without peer review....seems to treat energy as a substance....it then goes on to refer to astrological objects.......one quick test, in case I am misjudging, how does this STEM model account for the gyromagnetic ratio of the electron?

'without peer review'. It would be great to have a couple of peer reviews. Peer reviews are most difficult to organise without paying thousands of dollars up front, unless you are an academic staff member of a University which pays for it. And having an alternative theory does not help. Perhaps you have some suggestions how independent researchers can arrange to have a peer review. Why not start a new post to share your knowledge on the subject?

'seems to treat energy as a substance'. No. Anything that has mass has energy, and anything that has mass is made from fundamental particles or groups thereof. STEM tries to describe the form and characteristics of the energy within fundamental particles. Energy itself has many forms (light energy, heat energy, mechanical energy, gravitational energy, electrical energy, sound energy, chemical energy, nuclear energy, etc).

Nuclear energy is the energy within an atom, and it is that form of energy that is being referred to. The basic STEM hypothesis is that this form of energy is responsible for light, heat, etc. energy. Put another way, there is only one type of energy, and it translates into all other forms of energy. It is your choice to describe nuclear energy to be a substance, which suggests the existence of some underlying particles: it is not mine.

'it then goes on to refer to astrological objects'. Possibly a typo in the earlier 2019 version. I certainly cannot find any reference to astrological objects in any of the current papers. The new version of STEM has been considerably changed and updated since the 2019 and earlier versions: so please just refer to the current versions. It has been a long development process of research and model refinement that is ongoing.

'how does this STEM model account for the gyromagnetic ratio of the electron?' If you spent less time calling people dicks, and mouthing off about my alleged incompetency (wow!) and vanity (double wow!), and actually took the time to read the CURRENT papers referenced, you would find a chapter 'The Electron g-Factor' on pages 13 and 14 of 'the Duplicit Electron' paper found at this link.

I sincerely hope that some other readers of this post will take the time to have a good objective look at STEM approach. It is put forward as an alternative theory; possibly too alternative for some folk.

Conventional Science represents the nucleus as being unstructured: just a random grouping of spherical protons and neutrons. What are the implications of a structured nucleus?

Here is a pdf overview of an energy-centric approach to atomic structure. It is a copy of this PowerPoint presentation.

It starts at the preon level to build quarks; then nucleons; then atoms. However, it also explores the implications for electricity and light - links are provided to the more detailed publications.

The ball is in your court for comment.

Brillant !!

Conventional Science represents the nucleus as being unstructured: just a random grouping of spherical protons and neutrons. What are the implications of a structured nucleus?

Here is a pdf overview of an energy-centric approach to atomic structure. It is a copy of this PowerPoint presentation.

It starts at the preon level to build quarks; then nucleons; then atoms. However, it also explores the implications for electricity and light - links are provided to the more detailed publications.

The ball is in your court for comment.

What is a Preon ? What is its structure ? Physically . And then the geometry . 3D .

A Preon if true , a real physical thing , then it is fundamentally sub-quantum .