The paired tetrahedron stacking mechanism of the nucleus gave perfect match and prediction with the known nuclear magic numbers. However, one cannot but ask what's really happening within the layers which seem to occupy the same space. Such phenomena is also known to occur with covalent bonding between atoms, in chemistry. When one stops to think about it, it is found that real and apparent values for most physical constants are part of everydays' experience. We know about rest mass, relativistic mass, time dilation, length contraction, apparent power, real power ... Those readers who already went through my introduction on higher dimensional levels, will appreciate how easy one can understand imaginary 3D mass components by projecting the shadow of a pair of 4 dimensional hypertetrahedrons (called a simplex) onto a 3D plane. The angle of projection of such a shadow will vary the ratio of reactive to resistive energy, or in other words, the ratio of hidden mass to measureable mass, very much analogous to the way we engineers calculate the power factor in electrical systems. This is the angle that to this date, physicists have been calling 'spin'. A closed shell situation, is the condition at which such an angle projects a simplex onto a 3D plane, such that the observer perceives it as a 3 dimensional tetrahedron. The above diagram shows this effect. Each angle gives a different ratio of real to imaginary components, defining the way we perceive matter. A variation of this angle does in fact change the whole perception of matter, changing it between the well known four phases or states of matter; plasma, gas, liquid, solid. You can now understand why different models of the nucleus, based on gas, liquid and semi-solid states respectively, have each been very successful in describing selected properties of the nuclei, but none of them on its own has been able to describe all its properties, since most characteristics of the various phases are mutually exclusive. The model shown here is a variable phase model and for this simple reason, succeeds in modelling the nucleus where all others have failed.
VPM predicts vacuum as the fifth state of matter and free Hydrogen for all planets and the sun
The variable phase model (VPM) of the nucleus, can totally describe matter in terms of electromagnetic field structures. The phase of the nucleus, giving different properties of 3D motion to its constituents, can be described by the real and imaginary components of electromagnetic fields. If the real component is much greater than the imaginary one, the phase will tend to be solid or semi solid. When the imaginary component increases, the phase will tend to be more gaseous or plasma. The VPM predicts that for the matter phase having negligible or no real component at all (the dipoles being purely capacitive), the nuclear phase will change into that of a vacuum. This brings vacuum into the list of phases of matter, matter with no real mass component. The idea may not be so new, as we find that
Plato's Timaeus, long time ago had already proposed the existence of a fifth element which he called quintessence, of which the cosmos itself is made. Despite having no real mass components, VPM still requires that vacuum retains its electromagnetic properties, as we know it does. This explains enigmas like the observed matter popping in and out of empty space, and variations in energy levels and refractive index of empty space, for example close to a huge mass like the sun. The VPM also predicts that since it is known that refractive index of space is being altered by strong gravitational fields (due to bending of light phenomena), the space around a huge body will have its real component gradually increased from that of vacuum to plasma, to gas. The first evidence for this is the fact that over 99% of the universe is known to be made of plasma. Further phase change of such plasma would in fact generate a real gas atmosphere around each planet, starting from the lightest gases on the outer surface.
It is an accepted fact that all of the planets in our solar system started out with atmospheres of Hydrogen and Helium. The outer four planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune) were able to keep their original atmospheres with minimal to no gas by-products from their interiors. They have very thick atmospheres with proportionally small solid cores and their atmosphere consists of 89% Hydrogen and 11% Helium, element numbers 1 and 2 respectively. Recently it was also found that even small moons, including our moon have a a very thin layer of atmosphere composed of the same light gases. The phase shift mechanism proposed in this model, does in fact show how the ionosphere and earth's own atmosphere are maintained. Hydrogen and Helium were never a gas by-product released from planet's or moon's interiors, and presently my VPM is the only physical model that explains their presence on all the planets, including the sun. If one could go on Neptune or Jupiter, and start pumping out Hydrogen from Neptune's atmosphere into space, or somehow utilising it as an energy source, he would find out that the supply of Hydrogen will be inexhaustible. This is because, the thickness of Hydrogen around a planet is simply vacuum with its phase shifted to the lightest gas phase, so a new layer of Hydrogen will be instantly converted by the gravitational field from the surrounding vacuum, resulting in an inexhaustible supply of hydrogen. The same of course applies to our sun, and explains its inexhaustible supply of hydrogen. As you see, the term 'phase' of matter fits perfectly with its equivalent electromagnetic phase angle, and the old term of 'aether' (a gas like medium) for vacuum was not that bad at all!
More experimental evidence of vacuum phase turning into gas phase
The following is the introduction to a 1905 article by Clarence Skinner of the University of Nebraska:
While making an experimental study of the cathode fall of various metals in helium it was observed that no matter how carefully the gas was purified the hydrogen tested spectroscopically, persistently appeared in the cathode glow. Simultaneous with this appearance there was also a continuous increase in the gas pressure with time of discharge. This change in gas pressure was remarkable because of its being much greater than that which had been observed under the same conditions with either nitrogen, oxygen or hydrogen.
Now the variation in cathode fall with current density and with gas pressure in helium was found to be so like that obtained with hydrogen that it appeared necessary to maintain the helium free of the latter in order to make sure that the hydrogen present was not the factor causing this similarity in the results. Futile endeavors to attain this condition led to the present investigation, which locates the source of the hydrogen in the cathode, shows that the quantity of hydrogen evolved by a fresh cathode obeys Faraday’s law for electrolytes, and that a fresh anode absorbs hydrogen by the same law.1
Skinner employed various metals as cathode and found that most tarnished during discharge in helium and each produced hydrogen. Metals tarnish in the presence of atomic hydrogen, but not in helium. The following quote is from his article:
Altogether about two cubic centimeters of gas have been given off by this silver disk, which is 15 mm in diameter and about 1 mm thick. It shows no sign of having its supply of hydrogen reduced in the least.2
Many respected experimenters have reported the surprising appearance of hydrogen gas in their experiments. The following quote is from a 1914 article by Sir J.J. Thomson:
I would like to direct attention to the analogy between the effect just described and an everyday experience with discharge tubes. I mean the difficulty of getting these tubes free from hydrogen when the test is made by a sensitive method like that of positive rays. Though you may heat the glass tube to the melting point, may dry the gases by liquid air or cooled charcoal and free gases you let into the tube as carefully as you will from hydrogen, you will get hydrogen lines by the positive ray method, even when the bulb has been running several hours a day for nearly a year.3
Since the gases tested by Thomson were subjected to electrical discharge prior to test, he may have produced hydrogen by the same mechanism as Skinner. If the medium proposed by Maxwell is a matrix of protons and unpaired electrons, atomic hydrogen might be produced from the medium by electrolysis. If so, the hydrogen would be produced at a fresh cathode at the rate predicted by Faraday’s laws. Atomic hydrogen is extremely reactive and would be expected to tarnish metal cathodes and form diatomic hydrogen gas, as noted by Skinner.
In a 1914 article4, George Winchester of Washington and Jefferson College gave results of electrical discharge experiments using cp aluminum electrodes approximately one millimeter apart and pressures as low as one millionth of a millimeter. He obtained hydrogen and traces of helium and neon early in the experiments. He proposed that helium and neon had been occluded in the electrodes.
The case of hydrogen is different; I have sparked tubes until the electrodes were entirely wasted away and this gas can be obtained as long as any metal remains.5
A 1928 article6 by Stearcie and Johnson of McGill University reports on an exhaustive study of the solubility of hydrogen gas in silver. They reported that, at 25° C, silver absorbed 0.007 volumes of hydrogen per volume of silver. As pointed out above, Skinner’s silver cathode, which had volume of about 0.08 cc produced 2 cc of hydrogen gas or 25 times its volume of hydrogen and,'It shows no sign of having its supply of hydrogen reduced in the least.'2
The cathode could have contained only 0.08 X 0.007 = 0.00056 cc of hydrogen. The hydrogen Skinner produced could not have been initially present in his silver cathode
References
1. Skinner, C.A. The Evolution of Hydrogen from the Cathode and its Adsorption by the Anode in Gases., Phys. Rev. 21, 1-15 (1914)
2. ibid p. 6
3. Thomson, J.J., Nature, 90, pp. 645-647, (1914)
4. Winchester, G., On the continued Appearance of Gases in Vacuum Tubes, Phys. Rev. 3, pp. 287-94, (1914)
5. ibid. p. 290
6. Stearcie, E and Johnson, F., The Solubility of Hydrogen in Silver, Proc. Roy. Soc., London, A, 101, pp. 290-299, (1928)
