SAM Structured Atom Model

The SAM model proposes the neutron doesn't exist. Instead of neutrons, protons are bound together with an electron. The densely packed rule creates shapes for the nucleus which resemble chemical structures. In a chemical structure there maybe double or triple electron bonds which doesn't happen with SAM. The internal electron and hence its bond is highly localized (confined in space).

One might immediately reject SAM with the question what allows a hydrogen atom or deuterium ion in a confined space in the nucleus? I have proposed here before the solution to that query. That is weak interacting quantum states (WQS). For a hydrogen atom as the energy in these states (WQS) increases time-space for the atom becomes more dilated and contracted. Hence, the superposition of this time-space effect (confined in space) allows the transition from molecular to atomic. For a more complete view of how all the pieces fit see my patent pending.

https://patentimages.storage.g…ade2b/US20180322974A1.pdf

The SAM based nucleus seems consistent with WQS. However, the densely packed rule applies to the nucleus when the energy in SAM based bonds are at a minimum. Given an electron bond then that bond can be stretched. Which would lead to charge separation in the nucleus which would be seen by the electron cloud and would cause an increase in magnetic field and therefore the possibility of magnecules. See

Using the assumption of magnecules and using tools common to any chemical engineer (mass balance and stiochiometry), one can derive from the data a nuclear reaction equation for an electric arc in deuterium. That analysis provides very hard to refute evidence that a non-thermonuclear route to fusion happens. However, that analysis also reveals a 2 minute arc should have produced 95.6 million BTU but 2871 BTU was reported. The conclusion of fusion is too well supported by the analysis to dismiss. However, energy does not just disappear but it can be captured in a fuel. I have shown show this reaction can happen with an arc thru water, which is common. Therefore, endothermic nuclear reactions are also common. It is my hope that energy can be recovered from the endothermic products of this common type of nuclear fusion.

I find it easier to see that these are core electron level chemical interactions that have a substantial input and a more so exothermic energy output. Pico-scale and chemical. Also it would give similar measurements, in some cases, to an uneven nucleus shape as well.

Quote from Drgenek

The SAM model proposes the neutron doesn't exist. Instead of neutrons, protons are bound together with an electron.

Within the latest release of SO(4) I could exactly prove that inside 3-He and 4-He no neutrons do exists. I did model Deuterium and Helium only based on complex e-p bonds and the so called SO(4) wave/orbit structure. The e-p bond is not a constant bond and may consist of a different number of waves. Thus a Lego like model (SM is one too!) will never be able to give all details.

Of course there are neutrons in all higher Z nuclei but you can model the neutron as a special excess-energy e-p bond. The SO(4) model is absolutely exact down to 1 eV or the measurement uncertainty where as SAM is more descriptive only. There are always different targets when you develop a model. One is giving the exact physics of a particle the other is explaining some group of elements like behavior. All model have some merits within the bound of its adequate use.

We have the same "problem" with SM that is an oversimplification of physics based on LEGO toy minds axioms like point charge or isolated particles. But some aspects of SM are quite useful if you understand the limits of the model. And I'm quite sure that in 100 years people say the same of SO(4) physics!

Quote from Wyttenbach

Of course there are neutrons in all higher Z nuclei but you can model the neutron as a special excess-energy e-p bond. The SO(4) model is absolutely exact down to 1 eV or the measurement uncertainty where as SAM is more descriptive only.

We have the same "problem" with SM that is an oversimplification of physics based on LEGO toy minds axioms like point charge or isolated particles. But some aspects of SM are quite useful if you understand the limits of the model. And I'm quite sure that in 100 years people say the same of SO(4) physics!

By exact down to 1 ev are you describing total mass-energy or something else? Does the SO(4) model also predict a volume for the nuclear region or nuclear structure?

Quote from Drgenek

By exact down to 1 ev are you describing total mass-energy or something else? Does the SO(4) model also predict a volume for the nuclear region or nuclear structure?

May be you once read it before asking question. There is anyway no way around it if you want to understand this centuries nuclear & particle physics.

Quote from Wyttenbach

May be you once read it before asking question. There is anyway no way around it if you want to understand this centuries nuclear & particle physics.

This is why I don't understand with you and would prefer to ignore you. Instead of answering simple questions, you keep things confused.

Quote from Drgenek

This is why I don't understand with you and would prefer to ignore you. Instead of answering simple questions, you keep things confused.

For the arm chair scientist : Yes SO(4) can exactly calculate the proton charge radius and the relativistic (magnetic core ) radius. Now you are able to calculate your volume!

Quote from Drgenek

Does the SO(4) model also predict a volume

'Volume" is a bit tricky when 4D is involved..

The hypervolume of a four-dimensional sphere is H=(1/2)π²r⁴

The hypersurface surface volume is: V=2π²r³

The 3D volume is 4x that for a 3D sphere..

The latter two volumes total to over 8x the volume of a 3D sphere..

You see DrG ...I've been reading..

Now I need two 500mg 3D panadol tablets

Quote from RobertBryant

Now I need two 500mg 3D panadol

I have now found what my 4D recurrent headache looks like

in orthographic projection..

bioxriv paper... 4D thought

https://www.biorxiv.org/conten…0.03.05.979062v1.full.pdf

"QUATERNIONIC ASSESSMENT OF EEG TRACES ON NERVOUS MULTIDIMENSIONAL HYPERSPHERES "

"

pave the way to test an intriguing hypothesis: the recently-proposed claim that the
brain activity takes place in multidimensional spaces. It is noteworthy that, apart from the quaternionic maps described in
this paper, another method is available to assess higher dimensional activities of nervous networks. Indeed, it has been
recently suggested (Tozzi 2019) that hidden spatial dimensions of nervous activity could be tackled in terms of oscillations
inside a two-dimensional superlattice equipped with quantum Hall effects"

Quote from RobertBryant

I have now found what my 4D recurrent headache looks like

in orthographic projection..

The maximum connection density in a brain is around 10000 synapses. Thus the brain works more like a quantum computer than in a 4,8, 10 D logical space. But these guys are ready for take-off!

Quote from Wyttenbach

But these guys are ready for take-off!

North Texas is a long way from Cape Canaveral..

Arturo Tossini is a long way from testable with his 4D psyche

and a long way from physics with his pediatrician training

"I do not like to be on focus. Looking for unexpected, hidden multidisciplinary relationships,

I publish in rather different Journals (e.g., nuts in Nature, New England Journal of Medicine, Physics of Life Reviews, PLOS Biology, Cognitive Neurodynamics, etc) and fields (biology, physics, math, philosophy, history, medicine, and, above all, neuroscience). ---http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/ --- https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8426-4860 ---

I would term my method "testable rationalism": experimental previsions arising from top-down,

deductive mathematical/topological approaches.

Arturo T is leveraging off Oded Zilberberg's 4D/2D quantum hall results

but probably Oded would not view this stuff as kosher..

maybe it is pork..

"

29) Zilberberg O, Huang S, Guglielmon J, Wang M, Chen KP, et al. 2018. Photonic topological boundary pumping as
a probe of 4D quantum Hall physics. Nature, 553(7686):59-62. doi: 10.1038/nature25011.

16) Lohse M, Schweizer C, Price HM, Zilberberg O, Bloch I. 2018. Exploring 4D quantum Hall physics with a 2D
topological charge pump. Nature 553, 55–58. doi:10.1038/nature25000.