Nuclear Geometry Website -- 3D!

This is a not a commercial website. No ads, no pop-ups, no scripts, not even a hit counter.

Welcome to the Home of Colliding Corpuscular String Theory (CCST):

The ONLY String Theory that makes Definite, Testable Predictions!

Also Presented: N-Ice Theory and the Pop-Fizz Cosmology

CCST defines nuclear structure (most of what is presented on this website), resolves the disconnect between relativity and quantum gravity, redefining mass as a product of the recoils of courier photons exchanging angular momentum with charged surfaces, emulating the theoretical Higgs mechanism in the process, and predicts an exotic core object of "nuclear ice" for the universe that is still melting into hydrogen gas. (Effectively telling us where we will find all the "missing mass," and also why the universe is accelerating in its expansion.)

I even take a pot-shot at pointing out a candidate spherical hard X-Ray object in the ROSAT sky survey, noting that space is flat most places we look, but over yonder behind the Milky Way's core is a really big hill in space-time, and this thing is right at the heart of it. (See String Basics.)

Important Note, 06NOV19: One of the predictions of the N-Ice Theory and the Pop-Fizz Cosmology is that the universe is not flat, it is an "inflating balloon" white hole. I first pointed this out in letters to physiscists in the early 1970's, and self-published it in my later research reports in 1981 and 1982. I also pointed out that the physical universe is actually constrained to the skin of the balloon in the graphic depiction of the black hole/white hole embedding diagram. This makes it a "finite yet unbounded" universe... simply put, if you take a spaceship in a straight line far enough, you will eventually come back to where you started. Evidence is mounting that the predictions of CCST and it's cosmological foundations in the collapsar process are spot-on. The theory of quantum gravity embraced by CCST and N-Ice Theory also suggests an accelerating expansion rate to the universe. I don't believe any other cosmology has made such predictions. Nature Astronomy published a report on 04NOV19 giving evidence of a closed "inflating balloon" universe. There is another unverified prediction of the model, that looking toward the "neck" of the balloon there should be a shift in the energy-density gradient of space-time... a huge hill in space-time with the N-Ice on top. The galaxies behind this hill are closer to us than the galaxies on top of it, so the background galaxies appear optically larger than the galaxies on the hill which are farther away. I believe such an anomally has been reported in the ROSAT sky survey looking towards the Great Attractor, but the authors did not know what to make of it and glossed it over. (They were surprised they had to use a microscope to count the galaxies in the region.) Curvature of space-time is proportional to the energy-density gradient. It should be higher at the neck of the balloon where the melting N-Ice (core object) resides.

Polar View of Boron 10.
Stereo Polar View: Nuclear Structure of Boron 10, (Z=5 Outer Shell, N=5 Inner Shell)

The nuclear structure problem has puzzled physicists for nearly a century. I've spent over 30 years working on this problem myself. I had an idea back in 1978 that electrons had a string attached to them to explain the behaviour of magnetic fields and Cooper pairs. I theorized that electrons might be some kind of knotting in the string. I extended that idea to the nuclear structure problem. I felt that the electron orbitals around atomic nuclei were too orderly, constrained to particular configurations by the atomic nucleus they enveloped, and that those orbitals should be predictable from nuclear considerations alone. I worked for many years reverse-engineering the nucleus from those electron orbitals, seeking a system of geometry that would correctly define nuclear structure as well as predicting the electron orbital configurations. I am pleased to present here some of the results of my research. I believe that the nuclear structure problem is essentially solved, and I present this data in the hope that chemists and physicists will be able to confirm the nuclear structural models. There is still a great deal of work to be done, as I have only been able to generate solution sets to the lightest elements and their isotopes with my crude modeling techniques. Still, I believe the solution sets I have found give extremely compelling evidence that the laws of nuclear geometry I have proposed are valid, and yield accurate results. Not only does this string theory (colliding corpuscular string theory) predict the location of "up" and "down" quarks in the proton and neutron nuclear shells, it also predicts the locations of "p" and hybridized electron orbitals in the atomic configurations of the various isotopes. The system of nuclear geometry starts from a simple set of rules, yet it builds to complexity very rapidly as more shells are stacked within the nucleus to yield more massive nucleons. One of the more surprising discoveries of CCST is that the nucleus must contain shells of electrons interleaved with the proton and neutron shells in heavy nuclei. (Electrons are not point particles in this theory, electrons have a leptonic quark structure displayed in an orthogonally rotated space-time metric.) Even the lightweight helium nucleus is predicted to have an internalized electron shell of two snuggled in the nuclear interior. Essentially all non-valence electrons will be found composited into electron shells in the nuclear interior, they will most likely interleave between otherwise adjacent proton shells. I have not bothered to construct the electron shells, only solved proton and neutron shells are presented on this website. Electron shells are solved for much as proton shells with an opposite charge character, and several of the proton shells given can be directly converted to represent solutions for electron shells. Pinned vector bosons are handled slightly differently for electron shells, and I'm not sure at this point if electron shells in the nuclear interior are able to pin external strings. As I said, there is still a great deal of work to be done.

Students & Educators Welcome!

Polar View of the Proton Shell of Carbon.
Polar View: Proton Shell of Carbon
Mysteries Resolved (How CCST Resolves the Great Mysteries of Physics) NEW!
String Basics (Corpuscles of Light: The Ultimate Building Block)
Chemists (Nuclear Structure Intro & Important Stuff.)
Key to Nuclear Models (What am I seeing?)
Nuclear Shells (No, they are not molecules!)
Empirical Laws (The Rules of Nuclear Geometry.)
How to Build Them (Try it, you'll like it!)
Mensuration (Calculating Loop Values.)
Glossary (Terminology of Nuclear Geometry.)
Mirrors, Strings and Manifolds (Cosmological Foundations of CCST. C1994)

The A.S.R.O.C.M. (Is Reality a Simulation?)(Currently being edited.)

3D Viewing (Stereogram Viewing Aids.)

A Tribute to Tina Jensen and Norma Voges, Murdered 14MAY16

With the larger stereograms, the optimum screen resolution for this website is now 1024x768.
(Update Note, 21FEB2008: Enhanced the stereograms for clearer image on dim and older monitors.)

Copyrights 1997, 1999, 2002, 2008, 2016 by Arnold J. Barzydlo

Legal Notes: There have been No Taxpayer Dollars and No Government Grants. All work was written, produced, funded, built, photographed, scanned, edited, copyrighted, HTML-coded, and released by the author. The author retains intellectual property rights and copyrights on this material.

I sometimes make posts on YouTube concerning a variety of subjects, but I'd like to share one with you that I just made concerning the Kardashev Scale. This scale falsely assumes the technology level of a civilization is based upon it's energy footprint. You might find it enlightening to watch the video before going further.

And here is my post regarding this video:

The Karashev Scale itself may not be a bad broad measure of the scope or footprint of a technical civilization, but I think the underlying assumptions of how a technical civilization ascends are deeply flawed. First, they are not producing the energy drawn from stars, they are harvesting it. It is possible to both produce and harvest energy. You don't necessarily have to harvest all of the energy of a host star for your civilization to use the equivalent energy. A technical civilization is likely to discover quantum tunneling vehicles fairly early in their development. This opens the stars and galaxies to them. They aren't going to sit at home building their civilization around their star until they cover it up with a Dyson sphere. This belief probably arises from the author's assumption that faster-than-light travel is impossible, it's not.

I'd also hazard that "ringworlds " are more likely to be produced than Dyson spheres. You are going to have serious dust problems if you pack your civilization into a Dyson sphere, the stars are actually throwing out a lot of dust and ash on the solar wind. You won't have a planetary magnetic field to shunt that dust away, it would land in your Dyson sphere. With a ringworld you could magnetize the ring to keep the dust out. If you wanted to move your ringworld, you could build an additional magnetic structure to send all the dust one way to propel the star in the opposite direction. That calls up another point, energy-use may not be an adequate measure for gauging technical sophistication. Lower level technologies are less efficient, so it takes more energy to drive them. As a technical civilization advances, there may be significant drops in their energy usage as they develop more efficient ways to use it. This may be offset by their growth, somewhat, but it is not a given that all species will maintain expansionism, they may very well arrest their own expansion for stability. The point being that a prolific mid-level civilization in an expansive phase may be consuming vastly more energy than a technical civilization far in advance of them. So, the scale kind of breaks down in actuality because of the flawed assumptions it was built upon. It is a very broad generalization that may not accurately portray the technical sophistication of a population. By this line of thinking, people that drive big gas-guzzling trucks are more technically-sophisticated than people who drive electric motorcycles, because the trucker uses way more energy to travel the same distance. It is obviously a false analogy that I can gauge their technical sophistication by their energy footprint.

It should not be overlooked that more advanced technologies will use energy with much greater efficiency, and unbridled expansionism is a negative quality that destabilizes a civilization. The more territory you seize, the more enemies you are likely to make. Advanced civilizations are likely to curtail expansionism for this reason. The most sophisticated civilizations will likely achieve stability at a particular level of energy usage. The false assumption in the Kardashev Scale here is that unbridled expansionism is the norm for technical civilizations at all levels of development. If we could presume all species lacked wisdom and would not acquire it as they developed, this might be true, but again, it is a false assumption at the foundations of this hypothesis.

Only in the broadest terms can you measure a civilization by its energy footprint. I think there is a much better way to scale technical civilizations, not upon energy use, but on technical sophistication. Consider a type 0 as a people still using their organic bodies as-is, a type 1 as those having discovered FTL and are hybridizing and adapting their organic bodies for new environments, a type 2 as those who have designed new bodies that operate in harsh environments including the vacuum of space, and type 3 that no longer use their bodies but interact directly with their machines. Is there a type 4, and what would it be? I'd hazard a type 4 would dispense with the facade of physical manifestation and be working with the primordial sentience that organizes reality.

I have the hard to spell and easily mispronounced name of a theorist, so obviously I should name this the "Barzydlo Scale."

E-Mail If you wish, you may E-Mail Me.

(The domain name is not for sale.)