Part 3: Some heavier light model elements and speculations on how they lead to soutions to some effects that are insufficiently explained by our current scientific framework.
In the first two parts of this series, I described why I believe the idea that matter is made of light is worth considering. And explained how the model of light matter I'm proposing works. I described how gluons bind Hawkrings together to form neutrons and protons and the elements and how this model leads to explanations for why some molecules composed of the primary organic elements assume the shapes that they do.
In this part I'll examine a few guesses at how some of the heavier elements are constructed and how their structures lead to some of their properties. Of course, all of the nuclear configurations I'm presenting here are just guesses. With the organic elements, it seems more clear that these guesses are correct than it does with the heavier elements, which are more complex. Although I've likely made some mistakes below, I think these guesses fit well enough with the experimental evidence of how these elements behave, to present them.
As we build these heavier structures, we'll see that they differ signifcantly from the fairly spherical formations we saw in Carbon, Nitrogen and Oxygen. Most of the heavier elements are built from cubical units like the one we saw earlier in Helium. Where protons and neutrons both assume the inherently square shape that protons are limited to.
To form Aluminum, we start with 4 Helium cubes joining together like in the picture below.
With each cube connecting 2 of its proton or neutron edges to the adjoining edges of its closest neigbors. This formation is not an element. But is the basis for several elements. I'll call it a helium cross.
If we add another Helium cube to the front and back, it becomes Magnesium. The extra cube would attach to the back.
But to make Aluminum we first add a proton to one of the open ends of the cross and a neutron to the opposing end.
Then we attach the front and back Helium cubes. So Aluminum has the same basic structure as Magnesium. But is slightly heavier and has a proton-neutron pair opposing each other across the center of the formation, which is significant in generating the different magnetic properties of these 2 metals. We'll look deeper into how nuclear structure generates magnetic properties when we get to iron.
Below is simple model of the Aluminum nucleus that we'll see further down when we look at its crystal structure.
Magnesium and Aluminum are the first 2 metallic elements that generate strong stuctural bonds. It's easy to see how elements with the nuclear configuration above would be able to interact with atoms like themselves or with other elements in a way that would generate the bonds that lead to the structural integrity of materials formed with these elements.
Titanium starts like Magnesium. With another Helium cross joining to 1 end of it, and another Helium cube joins the open end of that.
This structure, similar to Magnesium's and Aluminum's, but even more complex, could be the basis of the uniquely strong structural bonds that Titanium generates.
Before describing the formation of Silicon, I should say that my guess at matter formation of the heavier elements, under the light model, is different from the current scientific theory for this phenomenon. In the light model, it wouldn't occur primarily in the burning and explosions of stars. Rather, it occurs at the beginning of each cycle of the universe. At the time we refer to as the Big Bang. But without the bang. Under the light model, it's more like a Big Birth, a gradual inflationary period that begins with all the uncombined Hawkrings in a giant black hole at the center of the universe. The uncombined Hawkrings in this black hole are fed light energy generated from its enormous gravitational pull on the fabric. The giant black hole draws light energy toward it, creating an increasingly strong flow of light toward the center of the universe. This flow eventually becomes strong enough that there is enough surplus light energy for the Hawkrings to form (or inflate) into the Hawkring based proton/neuton structures we've been discussing. As well as the structures of all the elements.
The relevant point of this, relating to the formation of Silicon, is that when Hawkrings combine to become neutrons and protons, then the elements, it happens in a giant matter formation free-for-all. And any structural formation that is possible and can become stable, is likely to occur and persist. We've seen in the elements constructed so far, that Hawkrings in protons and neutrons join to Hawkrings of opposite orientation. And protons have an inherently square shape with identical Hawkring patterns that prevent them from joining edge on. And most of the formations we've seen so far, begin with proton and neutrons joining edge-on.
Now we'll look at what happens when the formation of a nucleus begins with 2 protons joining to each other edge-off. The only way this can occur is like this.
This formation is not stable. So, once it begins, other protons and neutrons will join the formation until it does becomes stable. The growth sequence might go something like this.
And finally, we end up with this.
silicon(14) -- the only flat nucleus, not counting Hydrogen. There are a few other structural variations that seem likely to occur as a nucleus that begins with a proton-proton bond develops. It could wrap around itself and join into a 4 or 6 baryon wide tube, leading to Phosphorous or Argon. But the majority of atoms that begin with a proton-to-proton connection would form Silicon. And this seems to be the likely explanation for why Silicon is so prevalent in the universe -- making up 27% of the earth's crust, for example. It's not hard to see how this unique structure could lead to some of Silicon's unusual properties. The face of this nucleus is likely somewhat flexible and its dense electron footprint could accommodate itself to form strong bonds with many other elements. Especially as it does with Oxygen in most of the rocks in the earth's crust.
I won't even attempt to describe how this light model Silicon neucleus might explain the many peculiar properties we observe in Silicon behavior. But under the light model, it is obvious how this Silicon structure might form. And that this unique formation could be a basis to explain some of Silicon's unusual properties.
Now let's look at the formation of the Iron nucleus. And consider what makes an element's nucleus ferro-magnetic. That is, a nucleus that naturally generates a magnetic field and has an inherent magnetic orientation relative to the orientation of its nucleus. We'll start with a Helium cube and add a proton and a neutron to the open ends of the cube.
I'll call this a magnetic cube. We can imagine that positive (magnetic) light would be drawn into the center of the cube through the positrong in the center of the proton at the top of this formation, and out the other end through the hole in the center of the opposing neutron at the bottom.
This magnetic light would circulate in a field around the nucleus and back into the proton end. Thus generating a circulating field of magnetic energy surrounding it. The single magnetic cube doesn't exist as an element in nature. Instead, the magnetic cube combines with others to form Iron, Cobolt and Nickel.
In the pictures below, the those cubes are flattened. But they would actually be cubical.
The magnetic orientations of the cubes, preformation, would be like this.
With the proton closest to you being the magnetic intake end of the nucleus. And the 4 cubes around the middle of the structure having their magnetic orientation directed toward the center. So from all 5 magnetic intake proton faces, the nucleus is drawing magnetic light toward the center of the nucleus and pushing it out the far end. This formation seems a natural one that could drive the magnetic power of the ferro-magnetic elements.
All 3 ferro-magnetic elements are right next to each other on the periodic table. Nowhere else in the table, does the phenomenon of ferro-magnetism occur with much significance. Although all elements have measurable magnetic properties, only a very narrow range of atomic numbers (26 - 28) generate much ferro-magnetism. So there must be something unique about the structure of these elements' nuclei that generate a flow of magnetic energy.
If we multiply the 3 protons in a magnetic cube by the 9 cubes that make up the proposed ferro-magnetic formation we saw above. We get 27 protons. Which is the atomic number of Cobolt. And Iron is 1 less, 26. Nickel is 1 more, 28. But each of these ferro-magnetic elements seem likely to have this same basic structure. I think Iron, by far the most common (at 5% of the earths's crust vs negligible amounts for Cobalt and Nickel) has an open Helium cube on the exhaust end. This more open end might allow the magnetic light to flow out more freely than if that cube were a complete magnetic cube. In any case, the Iron nucleus generates the strongest magnetic moment of the 3 ferro-magnetics. And one of the cubes in Iron must be missing a proton to wind up with the atomic number of 26. An open magnetic exhaust end in Iron seems most natural.
The key to this idea of a nucleus' structure leading to its magnetic properties is most clearly seen in the idea of the theoretical single magnetic cube described above. What makes that formation highly magnetically responsive is that a proton is directly across the center of the cube from a neutron. All atoms are full of both magnetic and normal light. When a neutron and proton oppose each other, the proton would be directing some of its magnetic light across the nucleus and through the hole in the neutron. In an element like Oxygen, the 1, 2, 7 and 8 protons all oppose a neutron. And any of these faces could act with the same forces present in a magnetic cube, to dictate the way magnetic energy interacts with an Oxygen nucleus. For example in it's bond to Iron in Hemoglobin, the Oxygen nucleus would likely be aligned in a straight line through one the mentioned proton faces with the Iron nucleus' magnetic field. And this would determine the angles at which an Oxygen molecule engages with Iron in Hemoglobin. Carbon also has opposing proton neutron faces across its central ring that would likely affect the angles at which a Carbon nucleus in Carbon monoxide bonds to Iron in hemoglobin.
Finishing up the nuclear constuction section, we come to Phosphorus. A critical component in the backbone of DNA. It seems that Phosphorus is what allows the DNA structure its tremendous flexibility. Remember how silicon started, and imagine it grows to something like this.
Then wraps around to form this.
Then forms ends like this
Here is the nucleus with its electron footprint
The end with a proton allows a covalent bond with Oxygen that could act almost like a ball joint. In the outer DNA chain, where Oxygen bonds to phosphorous, 2 of Oxygen's electrons will naturally bond with the top proton and one of the other protons surrounding the top. Note that the top proton is supported by two neutrons that are more loosely connected to the main structure than most nuclear formations we've seen so far. And that loose connection would allow this proton and the electron engaged with it a wide ranging freedom of movement. And thus the same with respect to the freedom of movement that Phosphorous' attachment to Oxygen would enjoy in the DNA chain.
Now that we have some heavier elements to play with, let's talk about how the configurations and resulting properties of some metals play out under the light model. As far as I've figured out the likely nuclear formations for a handful of metallic elements, they're all built on cubic fomations. So, nearly all the proton and neutron faces align in a standard xyz set of planes at right angles. I point this out because it plays into how electrons arrange themselves in metallic bonds. Unlike the "1 electron tangent to 1 proton face" formations we saw in single covalent bonds in the organic elements, metallic bonds tend to be at more severe angles to several nuclear faces. Also, the metals are generally heavier, with more electrons between bonded nuclear faces. Most electrons in metals are touching several other electrons. They make room for each other by touching and pushing against each other. And the metallic elements arrange themselves into various crystaline patterns where there is significant physical contact between electrons.
Because electrons in metallic bonds tend to be at more severe angles to protons, their bonds are naturally looser than covalent bonds. This makes metals more flexible or malleable. And metals generally have many electrons in direct contact with each other, making them good conductors of heat and electricity. Science refers to this idea of many loosely held electrons in metals as "the electron sea". The electrons are considered de-localized. That is, they are not bound to any particular nuclei. They are able to freely move around from place to place among nuclei. In fact, the conduction of electricity is usually described as a migration of electrons through a metal. Although some quantum mechanical descriptions of electricity hold that electricity is a flow of energy through "stationary" electrons in a metal. That's closer to how it would seem to work under the light model. The electron sea, in that case would be better named the electron highway. That is, a contiguous field of touching electrons that allow normal light energy to flow from electron to electron through a substance. With all the involved electrons staying in their place and maintaining a generally unchanging crystal structure.
The crystal structure that generates the most conductive electron highway is called face centered cubic. This is the structure adopted by Aluminum, Copper, Silver, Platinum and Gold. Below is how this structure seems likely to be arranged in Aluminum.
There is one atom at each of the eight corners of the cubic unit. And one at the center of each of the 6 faces of the cube. Thus the name face-centered. There are no atoms in the center of the unit structure. That space is filled with electrons. And in aluminum, there are two different types of bonds that determine where the electrons are held in place in this structure.
First, let's focus on the 4 electrons binding the 4 nuclei in one corner.
Between those nuceli there are 4 electrons that form a perfect tetrahedron. Iv'e added wires between the electrons in this corner to illustrate the tetrahedron. With each of the 4 nuclei participating in bonds to 3 of those electrons. So each nucleus is braced against this 4-electron tetrahedral structure. And each nucleus has that same bond structure extended in 8 directions. The bond length from nucleus to electrons is identical in all these corner structures. And these bonds face the involved proton faces in the nuclei at slightly less than 45 degrees.
At the center of the structure are 6 electrons participating in longer bonds. Here the bonds reach farther across the structure between the nuclei at opposing faces of the unit. The particpating protons face the electrons nearly tangent to their faces, like in some covalent bonds. Thus they can convey relatively more energy into this bond and can maintain it at a greater distance than the bonds near the corners of the unit.
I put 6 electrons in the center in this model. But 4 or 5 electrons might also occur. The way the electron count works out for Aluminum(13) is each nucleus contributes 1 electron to each of its 8 corner bonds. That leaves 5 electrons that each contributes to the 6 center bonds it participates in. It seems like 4, 5 or 6 electrons in the center of each unit would all work well enough. And what I've modeled here is an idealized perfect crystal formation which doesn't always occur. If you bend a piece of Aluminum, or Copper, these structures become distorted. But the same bond types and general electron arrangements would still be present in samples of these metals that have been distorted. And those bonds, and the closely spaced electron configuration they generate would still cause these metals to retain their metalic properites under any circumstances. Thus the electron highway in copper remains effective even if you bend a piece of copper wire repeatedly.
Below is a piece of scientific evidence that reveals the 2 distinct bond lengths we just saw in the model of Aluminum's crystal structure. These are two images of x-ray and electron diffraction in an Aluminum atom.
In both cases, the white areas, or rings, reflect part of the atomic structure that the projectile (a photon or an electron) can't go through. Imagine the photon or electron bouncing off these places and not registering a mark on the sensing plate behind the interactions that occur at the aluminum atom in a piece of foil where the beams are directed. Interpreting this diagram under the light model, the two outer rings are reflections of the system of light surrounding the electrons binding the aluminum nucleus to its neigbors, with 2 distinct bond lengths.
The 2 central rings are the junctions between magnetic and normal light binding the electrons to the nucleus. In the electron diffraction image, the area inside these rings is almost completely obscured. The electrons run up against the shell of normal and magnetic light surrounding the nucleus, and are repelled by the magnetic light. The x-rays (photons) can penetrate this space and are only deflected by a small ring in the center.
Science tells us that the nucleus is much smaller than the size of that center ring, and contains the whole mass (except that of the electrons) of the atom. So, I won't claim that the nucleus might be as big as that center ring. But I'm open to the idea. I will say that if matter is made of light, the nucleus does not contain the whole non-electron mass. That mass is distributed throughout the atomic system. Rather, the nucleus is just the only place we can poke an atom with another particle of matter, and push against it to affect the whole mass.
My original point about the Aluminum diffraction images is that the 2 sets of rings in the images correspond to the 2 bond lengths in the face-centered cubic model of Aluminum. And these bonds are produced by the different angles from which electrons bind to the Aluminum nucleus. With the 2 types of bonds either pointing nearly tangent to a set of 2 proton faces, or at a more severe angle to several faces on a corner of the nucleus.
Another crystal pattern formed by many metals is called body-centered cubic. Like the face-centered pattern, body-centered arrangements have 8 atoms forming a cube. But there are no atoms on the faces. Instead there is a single additional atom at the center of each cubic unit. In the body-centered cubic formation, I think the bonds are primarily of the corner facing variety. So the crystal structure is supported with each nucleus attaching primarily to 8 neighboring nuclei at its corners. Iron forms this structure. We saw the structure of the iron nucleus earlier. Its shape is similar Aluminum's, just a bit longer. In the simple model below I've used 5 Aluminum nuclei to represent Iron in a model of half of a body centered cubic unit because I was too lazy to make a more complete model. Let's just pretend those are iron nuclei.
I've put 6 electrons between each pair of bound nuclei, and I just put them all in a planar ring between the nuclei to simplify this model. But there is likely some puckering and tetrahedralism going on in real Iron crystals that this model doesn't show. The main point is that unlike the face model's widely distributed interconnectedness, the body model has most of its energy focused at its 8 corners. This leads to the differing properties of these formations. One is focused everywhere. The other is focused in a more structurally sound way. The first is more conductive and softer, the second is more resistant and rigid.
In the body centered formation, there is still an electron highway. But it isn't as well connected as in the face-centered arrangement. Light energy flowing through this network would have to take a more circuitous path than in the face-centered formation. So Iron doesn't conduct energy as efficiently as metals that arrange themselves into face-centered formations.
But the body centered arrangement is more structurally sound by nature. You could draw a straight line through each nuclei with 4 different orientations and you'd get an equidistant spacing of nuclei/tangent electron bond face/nuclei etc, no matter which direction you choose. With most of each nuclei's energy focused on these corner bonds, this structure would be less inclined to bend and malleate than a face-centered structure.
In describing the construction of the light based Iron nucleus, we touched on how it generates a circulating current of magnetic light. Let's now see how some of its effects play out in inorganic, then in organic circumstances. Let's say we had an unmagnetized Iron crystal. And assume the magnetic fields generated by each nucleui are neutralized because the pattern of orientation is either randomly or systematically balanced out. That seems to be the natural state of Iron. If you apply a strong magnetic field to a piece of Iron, it will retain a pattern of magnetically aligned nuclei imposed by the field, for a while. But over time it will tend back to an overall neutral pattern of orientation. Especially if you heat it or bang on it. As the Iron crystal shifts the orientation of its nuclei, there is no measurable difference in the tensile strength of the Iron sample.
This means that an Iron nucleus in a crystal is able to shifts its magnetic orientation while the system of bonds it shares with its neighbors remains structurally intact. And the piece of Iron retains its structural integrity while the magnetic field the structure generates changes. That is, nuclear/electron structure is maintained, while elements of the crystal shift their orientation. If Iron can behave in this way, it seems likely that other nuclei would also have this ability to shift orientation, depending on systemic conditions. For example, when ice is forming from liquid water, an Oxygen atom might initially bond through Hydrogen to another Oxygen atom with a particular orientation. But as the Hexagonal ring surrounding it forms, the pattern of nuclear orientation of that atom might not fit well with the orientation of the other atoms in the ring. It seems that the original atom could reorient itself to fit in with the ideal arrangement of the whole system. And this ability would contribute to matter's tendancy to form the nearly perfect crystals that occur in nature all the time.
Next, let's look at an important life process that is not yet well understood by science and see if the light model leads to a more realistic explanation of how this process operates. Hemoglobin is a large molecule (a protein) that carries Oxygen O(2) from our lungs to muscles and other tissues. And carries Carbon dioxide CO(2) back to the lungs to be expelled. Hemoglobin binds to these 2 molecules with a single Iron atom at 4 locations in the molecule in a Heme complex that looks like this.
When blood is squeezed into the small capilaries in our lungs and tissues, the Heme complex bends or flexes, changing the angle at which the Nitrogen atoms in the complex bind to the central Iron atom. And this flexing action seems to be the critical mechanism that allows hemoglobin to attach to and release from its bonds with the different Carbon-Oxygen based molecules that are so critical to supplying our bodies with energy. In the flexed position, the one that hemoglobin assumes when carrying a payload, the Nitrogen atoms' bond to Iron is bent (with the bond more energentically attached to the magnetic exhaust end of the Iron nucleus). In the straight position, the Nitrogen atoms hold the Iron nucleus in a more neutral position. This is the position where the payloads are released and trade places with other CO(2) or O(2) molecules.
As you can probably tell, what I'm leading up to is the idea that the magnetic effects generated by the Iron nucleus, in its attachment to the Nitrogen atoms in the heme complex, are what allows hemoglobin to accomplish its job of holding and releasing the energy carrying molecules in our bodies. But this is not what science concludes.
I have searched for a scientific explanation of this process that discusses magnetism. But I haven't found any. It seems obvious that because Iron is ferromagnetic and the Oxygen/Carbon-based molecules Hemoglobin carries have significant magnetic properties, that magnetism is likely one of the forces at work in hemoglobin bonds. But the literature I've found doesn't even mention magnetism as a possible factor in these bonds. Instead, I've found discussions about the difference between the bonding properties of ferric and ferrous Iron to Oxygen. And how carbon monoxide bonds about 200 times more strongly than O(2) does with iron. Yet, carbon monoxide poisoning can be easily cured by introducing a concentrated supply of Oxygen to the lungs. But the idea that carbon monoxide bonds with Iron so much more strongly than Oxygen, naturally leads to the conclusion that Hemoglobin would almost never release carbon monoxide. And some extra Oxygen introduced into the lungs wouldn't do squat in curing Carbon monoxide poisoning. But that doesn't fit with what actually happens in our bodies. The literature I've found almost always ends with admirably honest conclusion that we don't yet understand how this process works.
Here is how I conclude magnetism acts in generating the effects of hemoglobin under the light model. When the heme complex is in the flexed position, with more light energy engaged towards the exhaust end of the iron nucleus, this increases the flow of magnetic light generated by the Iron nucleus. Or at least, the magnetic flow is more focused in front of the exhaust end, where the bonding and releasing takes place. That is, the Iron nucleus' magnet becomes more energized at the bonding location. And the Carbon-Oxygen molecules are pulled (magnetically) toward the Iron nucleus. The Carbon-Oxygen molecules are held by the Iron atom just like miniature natural magnets. In the straight position, the concentration of magnetic energy at the exhaust end of the Iron nucleus is reduced. And the payload molecules are released.
I'd guess that the bonds between Iron and Oxygen or Carbon dioxide or Carbon monoxide in hemoglobin are probably not even bonds where electrons are directly shared. If these bonds become (co)valent, they would be much harder to break than if each of the molecules retains its own electrons, and is simply held in place magnetically. And in reality, hemoglobin bonds to Oxygen, Carbon dioxide and Carbon monoxide all seem to be very easily formed and broken in a way that is apparently unrelated to how these molecules bond to Iron in a valent way.
Another protein called transferrin is critical in managing how Iron is stored and recycled in the body. Transferrin moves around in the blood, picking up and depositing Iron atoms. Moving them from places where they are not needed, to those where they are. When a hemoglobin molecule reaches its end of life, transferrin recovers Iron atoms from the spent hemoglobin. Probably, the hemoglobin molecule becomes damaged and doesn't bind its Iron atom as strongly as a new one does. When a transferrin molecule attaches to the Iron atom in a damaged hemoglobin molecule, it is able to pull it out and place it in another healthy hemoglobin molecule, where the grip on the Iron atom is stronger.
Transferrin has 5 Oxygen atoms that surround the Iron atom when it places or retreives one. Here too, it seems obvious that the magnetic interaction between Iron and Oxygen is likely at work. Guiding the transferin receptor to a position where it can get a magnetic grip on the Iron nucleus. And allowing this protein to use that grip to pull the Iron nucleus out of a weakened heme complex.
It also seems likely that ferritin, the protein the body uses to store up to 4500 Iron atoms, in an array of Oxygen atoms, also takes advantage of the magnetic interaction between Iron and Oxygen. Allowing a variable number of Iron atoms to be held close together and arranged in a way that prevents them from aligning magnetically in a detrimental way. This seems likely to by accomplished by a systematic arrangement of orientations of the Oxygen nuclei in the array that holds the Iron nuclei in a pattern that maintains a magnetically neutral overall structure.
Now let's look at a diagram of a small section of DNA, to see how the bonds to phosphorous in the outer chain might operate and result in DNA's flexiblity, and its ability to maintain its structural and functional integrity.
In the outer part of the DNA chain, each Phosphorous atom is bound to 4 Oxygen atoms, 2 of which are connected to fairly rigid Carbon-Oxygen-Nitrogen structures. The most important bond is the one at the top of the proposed phosphorous nucleus. Here is the Phosphorous model again.
And here is how it bonds to Oxygen.
As we saw before, the top Phosphorus proton is held in place between 2 neutrons which are loosely connected to the top of the Phosphorus structure. This gives an Oxygen atom participating in a covalent bond to that proton an unusually high degree of freedom of movement. We can imagine an ideal covalent bond between one Oxygen electron and the proton at the top of the Phosphorus structure, and one Oxygen electron bound to any of the 4 Phosphorus protons surrounding the top. The second bond mentioned could shift its position from 1 Phosphorus proton surrounding the top to an adjacent one.
If the larger structure of DNA didn't prevent it, this covalent Oxygen/Phosphorous bond could probably spin around the top of that structure and still remain connected to it.
Between each Phosphorous atom in the chain is a typically rigid Carbon-Oxygen-Nitrogen structure. Excepting the Nitrogen-Hydrogen bonds at the center. This is true on both sides of the chain, in symetrical places. Each unit in the chain is independently rigid, keeping the atoms at the center held in place and fairly undisturbed as the whole structure bends at the Phosphorous-Oxygen joints as the whole molecule flexes and forms loops, and performs all the molecular gymnastics that DNA accomplishes all the time.
What happens at the center of the DNA chain is no less amazing. The key to the DNA system's ability to unfurl itself and reform 2 matching chains from the loose links available when it replicates, is the shape of the connecting links in the chain and the unique softness of the Hydrogen-Nitrogen bonds that link the 2 sides of the chain. I've never read anything scientific that suggested the Nitrogen-Hydrogen bonds where amines disconnect and reconnect are not covalent. But under the light model that seems likely. As we saw earlier, Nitrogen's electron footprint is practically identical to Oxygen's. Except for the lone electron on the bottom. And these two elements often bond in similar ways to Carbon. Especially in 5 or 6 membered rings. Nitrogen often holds a single Hydrogen atom as part of these structures. And a single electron holding the bond between Nitrogen and Hydrogen would seemingly give these Hydrogen atoms their maximum ability to disconnect and reform the structures at the center of the DNA chain. So it seems likely that Nitrogen bonds to Hydrogen at the center of the DNA chain with a single electron from its "soft spot" that we discussed earlier. Making this bond uni-valent rather than covalent.
The same heme structure that binds Iron in hemoglobin, also binds Magnesium in chlorophyl. And in both these proteins, it seems likely that Nitrogen's soft spot is at work in bonding to the central elements in these formations. A single proton from each of the 4 Nitrogen atoms facing the bonds to Iron and Magenesium would make these bonds weaker than they would be if, say, there were 2 proton faces involved. Which would be the case if Oxygen replaced Nitrogen in these molecules. The softness of the Nitrogen bond would, for example, make it easier for tranferrin to pluck an Iron atom from a heme structure, or to place one. And so it seems likely that the many uniquely soft bonds that Nitrogen generates in living molecules is generated by the lone proton on the bottom of its nuclear structure.
Gluon role in generating the spectrographic signatures
Finally, let's consider how light model atoms might generate the spectrographic signatures of elements and molecules. If we boil down the components of matter into a recipe of oppositely oriented Hawkrings, exchanging energy. And those components are interacting with each other through glouns in a nucleus to achieve a balanced exchange of energy, then something in the nucleus must have the ability to make occaisional corrections to keep the energy of the system balanced. A blib of light released from a gluon connecting 2 energetically imbalanced Hawkrings could produce such an effect. The imbalances that create this ejection of energy are certainly within the nucleus, where the system of light energy in an atom or molecule is generated. Therefore the characteristic emissions of light, that we observe from atoms and molecules should be largely defined by the gluon interactions among the system of Hawkrings that make up a nuclear structure. As opposed to electrons jumping from one orbit to another, as is supposed under the shell model.
If we consider the simple model for a Hydrogen nucleus (a proton), and categorize the gluon bonds among its 9 Hawkrings, we find that there are only 2 types. Those attached to the central positrong and those that connect the Hawkrings in the outer square. And Hydrogen's spectrographic signature relects a relatively sparse pattern of energy expression that could easily correspond to two flavors of gluon bonds balancing the relative power of the 9 Hawkrings in this system. As nuclear formations get more complex, there are many more differences between the gluons balancing the energy in a nucleus. And the spectrographic signatures of the higher elements generally reflect a much wider variety of energy balancing (gluon) blips. I haven't gone very far in evaluating how these signatures are generated from the nuclei I've described. But if the structures in this model were understood and correlated, in a consitent way, to the observed spectrographic signatures, that would be the most obvious way to verify whether this (or any) model of matter is valid.
Any physical model that really gets to the heart of how matter operates, must incorporate an understanding of how and why different elements and molecules produce their spectrographic signatures that is based on elementary foudations. Under the light model, a glouon, a piece of light connecting variably energetic Hawkrings in a nucleus, would obviously be the source of the characteristic light signatures the atoms and molecules emit.
I realize that this idea of matter being made of light is very different from what we've all been taught. And to differing degrees for each of us, what we've learned to "believe in." But I think the idea of light matter is written into Einstein's ideas about the nature of the relationship between matter, energy and the space-time fabric. And into his description of that relationship in the equations of special and general relativity. And not being a scientist, I've never believed that everything our science concludes about matter's composition and behavior is necessarily correct. Or, more pointedly, I don't think our indeterminate theories are leading us directly to a complete description of what matter is and how it operates. I've been perhaps, more ignorantly open minded to the idea that a different and more complete description of matter's behavior is possible. So this idea of matter being made of light and the resulting model I've tried to describe, seems very natural to me. But I know it likely won't seem realistic (or perhaps even sane) to anyone else.
Our current understanding of physical reality does nothing in the way of providing the mechanical explanations for nature's behavior that Feynman was wishing for in his gravitation rant in part 1 of this series. Nor has it led us to Einstein's goal of "a complete worldview that is in accord with the principle of relativity." And I think a model of matter based on light might accomplish both of those goals.
It follows from the special theory of relativity, that mass and energy are both different manifestations of the same thing. A somewhat unfamiliar conception, for the average mind.Our science clearly points to the conclusion that one manifestation of nature's energy is in the form of light. And assuming Einstein's statement above is "true". That is, if mass and energy are truly different manifestations of the same thing. Then light is the only possible source of all of the manifestations of nature's energy, including the energy in matter.
All I am saying, is (maybe we should) give light (theory) a chance.