Atoms

In the Velcro model, positive and negative quanta blend into each other when structures are made. This was mentioned in the chapter on the positron as an explanation to why positrons and electrons are less reactive than single positive and negative quanta.

All structures in the Velcro model have their hooks and hoops mixed into each other, making them less reactive than single positive or negative quanta.

The larger the structure, the more opportunity there is for mixing, and the less reactive are the surfaces.

Considering that the proton has thousands of quanta, yet a net charge of only one, it must be almost as smooth as a neutrino. Add neutrons with no net charge into the mix, and we get nuclei with remarkably smooth and non-reactive surfaces.

This is the reason why free electrons do not readily attach themselves to atomic nuclei.

Instead of attaching themselves to lone atomic nuclei, passing electron will bounce off of them. If they come into the collision with a lot of energy, the electrons will disappear into space after the collision.

However, if an electron has too little energy to escape the electric force between itself and the nucleus, it will be dragged down again for another bounce.

Neither able to attach itself to the nucleus, nor escape its electric field, the free electron is trapped. It bounces about wildly in all directions, neither loosing energy nor gaining energy because the collisions are completely elastic.

This bouncing about is the electron cloud that standard quantum mechanics talk of.

An atomic nucleus is able to trap as many free electrons as its overall positive charge, and each electron will find its own place to bounce about as far away as possible from other trapped electrons. After all, there is electric repulsion between the electrons.

Electric attraction keep the trapped electrons from escaping the nucleus. Electric repulsion between electrons keep each electron bouncing about in its own little area as a so called electron cloud.

Again, we have found a perfectly non-magical and entirely kinetic explanation for a subatomic phenomenon.

As long as the bounces are in complete harmony with the tiny counter-bounce of the nucleus, there is no net transfer of energy from the nucleus to the electron or the other way around.

The bounce of each electron is quickly brought into resonance with the nucleus, once it is trapped.

This is comparable to the resonance that a trampoline jumper exploits when jumping up and down on a trampoline. The jumper must never violate the harmonics of the trampoline, or there will be a violent transfer of energy between the jumper and the trampoline. Anyone who has been unfortunate enough to land on a trampoline in disharmony with it knows how painful that can be.

But the nucleus of an atom is no ordinary trampoline. It does not have a gliding range of harmonics to offer bouncing electrons. Electrons can only bounce off of it with precisely defined energy levels. It is an either or thing. There is a low, minimum bounce, and there are higher bounces. Each with their own well defined energy level.

In some cases, the energy level between a high bounce and a low bounce is exactly that of visible light of some particular colour. In such cases, an electron moving one level down in its bouncing will emit light.

An electron going down one or more energy levels must rid itself of energy, and the only way it can do this is to kick zero-point photons up in energy.

Conversely, if an electron is hit by a photon with a sufficiently strong energy level, it may jump up one or more levels in its jumping by absorbing energy from the photon.

Note that the height of the electron bounces depend on the mass (inertia) of the nucleus. The more massive a nucleus with a certain proton count is, the higher are the resonant jumps. This explains why the light of the heavy deuterium isotopes of hydrogen is bluer than the light of regular hydrogen, as mentioned in the chapter on atomic nuclei.

Helium atom with one excited and one base energy electron bouncing off of it.

Atoms like to join together to form molecules, crystals and metal structures.

This is strange because atoms are electrically neutral. There should be no electric affinity to other atoms. Why, for instance, do hydrogen atoms always join together in pairs to produce hydrogen molecules, or team up with an oxygen atom to form water?

The answer to this lies in the fact that positive quanta are slightly more reactive than negative quanta.

In the chapter on the positron, this fact was used to explain why positrons have a greater tendency than electrons to get tangled into complex structures. This imbalance in reactivity between hooks and hoops explained why there are positively charged protons and neutrally charged neutrons, but no equally large negatively charged structure.

This very same mechanism is behind a minuscule, but vital imbalance in the electric force.

Consider a simple hydrogen molecule.

Two protons, each with their trapped electron bouncing off their surface, come into close proximity of each other.

There are neutrinos flying about, communicating electric force between the four particles.

There is repulsion between the protons, there is repulsion between the electrons, and there is attraction between the electrons and protons.

All together, there is a zero net force. Except, the hook covered neutrinos communicating repulsion between the electrons are slightly reactive. They do not stay as perfectly in the field as the hoop covered neutrinos communicating repulsion between the protons.

The net result is a tiny under-pressure, big enough to keep the molecule together.

Net under-pressure of neutrinos keeps hydrogen molecule together.

The reason atoms join together to produce all the chemical structures that we see around us is that positively charged neutrinos are hook covered and therefore slightly more reactive than the hoop covered negatively charged neutrinos.

Chemical bindings are a function of the electric force, the imbalance between hooks and hoops, and the mass (inertia) of atomic nuclei.

Of these three factors, only the imbalance between hooks and hoops are constant. The electrical force is dependent on the availability of neutrinos in the space we occupy, and the inertia of protons and neutrons depend on their size, which is known to grow over time.

We can therefore conclude that the strength of chemical bindings are likely to be variable too.

Also, buoyancy of liquids and gases depend on the relative density of atoms, which in turn depends on the mass of atomic nuclei and how closely the electric force is tying atoms together.

Buoyancy too, is variable.

The mega-insects and heavily armoured fishes that existed in a distant past, long before the dinosaurs, were only possible because the buoyancy of air and water relative to carbon and calcium was greater back then. The reason we have no mega-insects or heavily armoured fishes today is due to a change in buoyancy.