Notes for Chemists: Testing Nuclear Shell Models

Click any image to download full size.

The laws of nuclear geometry require that certain nuclei pin external energy strings to arrive at the proper number of Down quarks. Since these strings also tend to pin to electrons, the pinned strings define some atomic orbitals. Though covalent bonds can be mediated with or without strings pinned to the nucleus, metallic and crystalline bonding may require the guidance of hybridized pinned strings. Colliding string theory shows all the potential pinning sites, and predicts the number of pinned strings that will be required, if any. The first two figures show bond mediation by radical (pinned) strings and pinning strategies for radical strings respectively. The third figure represents shadow views of several quark collision cells.

General Introduction

Greetings Chemists, Students, Educators, and Web Surfers! Most string theories are an attempt to reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics. I believe this string theory can do that and more, but that is not the purpose of this web site. This web site is intended to serve up some examples of nuclear geometry along with the laws which govern nuclear structure. The purpose of the site is to permit chemists and other interested parties to examine the structural models and check their validity. Chemists confirmed the Bohr model of the atom, and it should most appropriately be chemists who confirm this one.

On to Business...

Colliding string theory predicts a system of nuclear geometry. Where three or more strings collide, a collision cell with special properties is produced, we call them quarks. Colliding string theory tosses out the assumption that protons and neutrons are discreet entities in the nucleus, and instead treats their structures as a fluid string geometry which intermingles to form discreet geometric shells of colliding strings in the nucleus. When you add a free neutron to a neutron shell, the shell will adopt the quarks of the free neutron by adding the free neutron's string to the shell and re-structuring itself into a new configuration that includes the added quarks of the neutron, which is no longer free or discreet. It is now bound in a nuclear shell, its quarks have been distributed into it, it is not possible for it to bump into another neutron in its shell, as the quarks are all fixed in position on the surface of the nuclear shell by the colliding string geometry which produces them. The nuclear shell models are an extension of nuclear shell theory proposed in 1949 by Maria Mayer in the USA and J. H. D. Jensen, O. Haxel and H. E. Suess in Germany. Their idea was that individual nuclei in the nuclear interior couldn't be bumping into each other or the nucleus would fly apart. They still accepted the independent-particle model, though, and rationalized that each nucleon fills successively higher energy levels, and that is where colliding string theory and its system of nuclear geometry depart from the conventional view. The specific electron structures of the elements intrigued me, and I felt there was an organized charge structure at the nuclear surface responsible for guiding electrons to their respective locations. I just couldn't see how the independent-particle model could get away with producing such a specific set of electron orbitals, yet not be able to predict those orbitals from nuclear considerations alone. So, I deduced a new model for the atom that would account for the electron orbitals, now I want chemists to test its validity.

This string geometry is reflexive, the nucleus may alter its structure in response to external influences. Some nuclei in the free state and in bulk materials may stack their nuclear shells in different order. The geometry is more flexible than I at first believed it to be, so there may be some surprises. I have learned to watch for them, as they usually reveal something interesting about nature. The ground states of the nuclear shells for the light elements have inherent stability, and once an isotope is coaxed into this state, it should be possible to test the isotope's physical properties against predictions of the geometric model. The strings do not possess significant tensile strength in the classical sense, classical scattering interactions tend to disperse them into a wave function. This is illusory, the disadvantage of a spatially-oriented observers viewpoint, the structure remains intact because the particle spreadsheet is undisturbed by classical scattering. There's a bit more to it, of course, but the details are moot if the provided nuclear shells are found to be invalid representations of nuclear structure. This system of geometry will allow chemists to model the distributions of quarks on stacked nuclear shells, thereby determining their exact nuclear charge structures. There is a tremendous advantage offered by this system of nuclear geometry in that it predicts the necessity and the locations of pinned vector bosons. One of the easiest attributes to confirm should be electron orbitals associated with P.V.B.'s (Pinned Vector Bosons). Often, but not always, these P.V.B.'s define "p" orbitals, but "p" orbitals can also arise from positive charge jets emanating from "up" quarks on the surface of a nuclear shell. These jets may attract electron pairs in the absence of P.V.B.'s. But where there is a P.V.B., nature will tend to pin electrons to them to achieve the lowest energy configuration for the atom. I should also point out that some of the nuclear shell models sport more P.V.B.'s than there are available electron pairs to fill them all. That's not a problem, just don't automatically assume that every P.V.B. has electrons pinned to it. There are a limited number of low-energy solution sets for the lightest elements. It should be possible to match molecular bonding geometry of nuclei sporting P.V.B.'s with a particular atomic solution, though you may have to check a few shell stacking arrangements to find a valid atomic solution.

Pinned (Radical) Strings

You will frequently see me refer to "radical strings," "P.V.B.s" or "Pinned Vector Bosons," but generally these terms are interchangeable. Occasionally I call them "bonding strings" or "lattice strings" in specific circumstances, such as when they mediate a covalent, metallic, or crystalline bond geometry. When I first deduced these string formations, I needed a name for them. They were external to the nuclear shell, curving away rather than meeting on the surface as did all the other "nuclear strings," hence the name "radical strings." But I later realized these strings were related to the weak nuclear force, as any process which stripped them away could generate a violation in the shell geometry, prompting restructuring of the shell and possibly spallation. Physicists already had a name for a "particle" involved with the weak nuclear force from the Weinberg & Salam electroweak theory called a "pinned vector boson." Obviously, this must be the "particle" they were talking about, it is a vector particle, it is a boson, and it is pinned to the nucleus. So, I realized I had independently deduced the nature of this "P.V.B." in my nuclear models' requirement for the pinning of radical strings. I took it to be something of a confirmation that the work was on the right track.

In many of the nuclear shell images radical strings are pinned to specific Up quarks. I have tried to balance the charge structures of the shells when I pinned these strings, but I pin them with the shells un-stacked. The pinning sites of radical strings are completely flexible. They can pin to any Up quark on the surface of a nuclear shell, but when the shells are stacked they will preferentially pin to an Up quark which is positioned over (or under) another Up quark in the adjacent shell. You can not move a P.V.B. from one nuclear shell to another, it must be pinned to the appropriate shell. You may not pin P.V.B.'s to Down quarks under any circumstances. They should only be pinned to change Up quarks into Bogus Down Quarks. Consult the empirical laws of nuclear geometry for more details.

I'm sure the question will arise among chemists: How long are the radical strings in relation to the nuclear dimensions? Well, as chemists, you are better equipped to answer this question than I. The system of geometry deals with nuclear structure, and the radical strings primarily are included in the models to contribute a snap point and a portion of their charge currents. The nuclear requirements end there. I imagine they can be huge with respect to the nucleus, shared among many nuclei and electrons, particularly in metallic daisy-chain bonds. If a material is very cold, the pinned strings will pull taught. Heat it up, the bonding strings will grow. Get a material really cold, and it will nudge nuclei toward their ground state geometry. Some nuclear isotopes may have "hot" shells, a more complex solution set for the nucleus which maintains stability under the influence of internal charge locking (or lack thereof) of the shells as well as external pinning of electrons and other nuclei. Since the models I am presenting you are attempts at ground state solution sets ("cold" shells), to verify them you must get nuclei into their nuclear and electronic ground states. I find experimental physicists and chemists are quite clever in these matters, so I leave it to them to figure out how best to authenticate the models.

Also keep in mind that the shell solutions given do not point the string vectors. The linear motion of the nuclear strings influences charge, intrinsic spin, as well as shell stacking, and there may be more than one vector-pointing solution for a shell. This could be indicative of nuclear isomerism in the charge/spin properties of a nucleus, a property difficult to study in detail without shell-stacking capability. Computer models are greatly needed. I do not have the resources to do that for you, this is about the best I can manage.


I've found chemists to be rather practical, and I've tried to develop an intuitive dialect for dealing with the various elements of string geometry found in this theory. If you find terms for which the usage is questionable, check the glossary, I recognize that I may occasionally use terms like "linearization," which have a specific meaning to me, but probably not to anyone else. Typically physicists label the proton number of a nucleus as "Z" and the neutron number as "N." I felt that would add an element of confusion to the text for the casual reader, so I simply bucked the convention and called the proton number "P." Pre-existing terms may exist for some of the stuff I'm describing. In many cases though, I have not identified such a link, or I have elected to simplify the terms for accessibility to non-professionals (like myself).

You'll find extensive hypertext links to the glossary throughout this site to assist you. After reading a glossary link, press the "Back" button on your browser to resume reading where you left off.

Background Notes

My studies of energy began late in 1978 and were inspired by magnetic lines of force. I theorized that electrons had a string tied to them which produced these field lines, and the electrons themselves might be some kind of knotting in the string. That led me to study nucleons, because it seemed there would have to be more than one kind of string to explain the other particle species. Eventually I expanded the field to include four string types: Lepton, Anti-lepton, Hadron, and Anti-hadron. The anti-strings vary in handedness from their counterparts, hadron and lepton strings vary in their dimensional orientation (i.e. {x,y,z}, i{x,y,z}). I believe these four string types and the ways in which they can combine to form complex particles can explain all currently known particles. There may be additional string types which represent "ghost" particles, permitting the possibility of complex structures not manifest in the dimensions we consider important, but since there is no direct evidence, it is a waste of effort to expand on the possibility. It is enough to know that there is no prohibition in the energy model which excludes string and particle species beyond our ability to detect. The first colliding string models for the proton, neutron and electron were published by myself in 1983. Since then I have been analyzing, revising, and adding to the work as time permits. Quite a few interesting discoveries were made in the interim.

One final note, chemists should definitely check out the stacked model of Boron 10, you'll also find a link to it from the "P5" shell. There is also a pair of stacked models showing the P3-20P and N4-22P nuclear shells of lithium 7 stacked both ways. You'll also find an interesting idea concerning "s" orbitals and some chatter about the (imaginary?) strong nuclear force in the "P6" shell description, specifically P6-30PB.

Copyright 1997, 2002 by Arnold J. Barzydlo
Key to Nuclear Models
Nuclear Shells
Empirical Laws
How to Build Them