Should it at least not be considered that there might be a relationship between the orbital shapes and that of the external shape of the nucleus? What if there was? How could this shape be defined? What would those "externals" look like? Could the nucleus maintain a near spherical shape and yet also have definable external shaping? Under what conditions might this agglomerating take place? Could the manifestation of the orbitals be directly related to the external formats of the atomic nucleus? How could the 6-vector p orbitals not only be exhibited at Z=1, but throughout all the other elements as well? What about these s,p,d,f and g orbital shapes? Could they likewise be an external reflection of nuclear shape?

Since the existence of the p orbitals is manifested throughout the entire periodic chart for every element, it would seem that some consistency must be occurring. How could this consistency happen, while still maintaining a near spherical shape, and allow for different quantities of nucleons to compose the nucleus? How can any orbital show a vector based manifestation and not be a reflection of the external nuclear shape?


Unlike the manner of devising a mathematical formulation to explain some specific phenomena, a closer look at the inherent mathematics of the close packing of equally sized spheres, leads to a plausible connection with that of nuclear structure and its external formatting particulars that are missing in the current physics approach.

It should be noted, that the mathematics of close packing was not generated with any thought towards nuclear structure. The mathematics stands alone, without any need of connection to the physical realities. It does however, appear to link with many different concepts of which, external nuclear formatting is but one.

Since the shape of the nucleus has been removed from the Schrödinger wave equation, and the nucleus can never be a true sphere (according to current Physics, even a proton is not a true sphere), along with the fact that the wave formula accurately replicates experimental evidence of electron orbits, then in essence, should mean the formula is compensating elsewhere in its calculation. Since nuclear mass is some 1836 times an electron's mass, why shouldn't the external shape of the nucleus impact upon their orbit shapes?

Physics well tell us that protons are not real spheres, they also would say it is fundamental and yet not a true sphere. In my view, every physical thing that exists is either a unit sphere or clusters of these unit spheres. These two different entity types behave differently from one another. One is a sphere, the others are not. Therefore I would exclude all of the following from being true spheres as well as from being a fundamental particles...protons, neutrons, electrons, muons, neutrinos, quarks, gluons, photons, and all anti-matter.

The Schrödinger wave equation is used to replicate electron orbital paths. It performs this analysis, ignoring any external formatting of the nucleus; it considers the nucleus to be point source. While this practice works well for definition large mass physical manifestations, it does not accurately reflect the reality of the existing small mass conditions.

For the moment, consider a proton and a neutron as true spheres. Helium, as you know, is composed of two protons and two neutrons. This helium nucleus, would solely be comprised by four true spheres. No matter how many true spheres you group together, they will never group together to form a larger perfect sphere, and therefore the application of point source to the nucleus is inappropriate. When further consideration is given to their masses, how can the external shapes of agglomerated protons and neutrons be completely disregarded?

Now according to Physics, a proton is not a true sphere, and yet, it is somehow, still considered as an elementary particle. This, I think, is quite impossible. Just what does a proton look like; exactly how is it composed? Well, it has a preferred axis, and when it is pushed off-axis by 45 degrees, it precedes to a new axis of 90 degrees from its original axis position. This is certainly not the mechanics of an elementary particle. The complexities of these motions should not be associated with any fundamentalism.

A true sphere, can only do what a true sphere can do.

A true sphere is ALWAYS attracted by other masses; either unitary spheres like themselves, or groupings of these unitary spheres (agglomerations or clusters).

It is only when close proximity of two agglomerations occur, that any kind of repelling force can occur.

This repelling could occur due to actualities of various factors; their distance of separation over time, relative masses,vector angularity, and external formats.

Should additional masses be captured by this larger mass, then when sufficient mass has accumulated in orbit, it will gravitationally be redistributed equally in either the 6 vector regions, and/or the 8 vector regions. This will occur at virtually the same moment in time; as one particle is captured, so too are all the others. Those captured would all now be at the same distance from the centre of the nucleus. All the other previous mass would have their own spherical centers be at distances less than this distance. This equality of building is controlled by the spin.

Instead, physics is able to replicate the orbital phenomena through the use of the four quantum numbers. The practice of devising a mathematical system that regenerates some phenomena does not mean that from a physical understanding that there is a real explanation or comprehension of that phenomena. This replication does not insure any fixed point correctness of the phenomena in question ... it merely is able to regenerate some specific experimental observations. From a logical, physical sense, it seems most likely that the external format of the nucleons has a bearing upon the orbital shape: and that the four quantum numbers are therefore not sufficient for orbital determinations.