Steam, water, and ice. Could it be that particles also exist in phases? It’s reasonable to think that particles behave differently in different environments. Particles at the core of a star in an extremely strong gravitational energy gradient and an enormous amount of pressure fuse to produce heavier particles. The conditions at the core of a star possess a very high ratio of potential energy to kinetic energy of space (i.e., a very strong gravitational energy gradient), leaving relatively little kinetic energy with which to produce electromagnetic interactions. As a result, there is a very slow rate of electromagnetic interaction, and a correspondingly slow rate of time at the core of a star. In addition, due to the strong gravitational energy gradient, there is also extreme pressure. This apparently creates an environment where Hydrogen can fuse to form Helium, and eventually where larger particles can fuse to form even larger particles, up to Iron.
On the other extreme, at temperatures near absolute zero, particles tend to act like bosons, together forming a single energy entity. The individual particles act in concert with each other as a single energy entity.
So what happens in an atom? In this model, the atomic structure is composed of nucleons and orbital particles. The nucleons are composed of large particles with alternating electromagnetic (e-m) directionality with every e-m interaction. In other words, in one e-m interaction, the 2-D or 3-D electric energy moves inward toward system center (+) and the next e-m interaction, its 2-D or 3-D electric energy moves outward from system center (-). Nucleons do not include neutrons as widely accepted. Instead, the majority of nucleons consist of 2 X proton mass (2 X pm). It is also possible for a nucleon to consist of 1 X pm, but more commonly, a nucleon may consist of 3 X pm.
In this model, orbital particles consist of 2-D particles with alternating e-m directionality. Orbital particles are the size of an electron or a positron, but alternate between the two identities with each e-m interaction. So in one e-m interaction, an orbital particle is an electron (-), and the next e-m interaction it is a positron (+).
Orbital particles occupying the same orbital possess opposing e-m directionality with every e-m interaction and are entangled with each other. In addition, each orbital particle is also entangled with a nucleon at a corresponding energy level in the nucleus. The atom possesses a strong gravitational energy gradient. The orbital particles exist in a region of relatively weak gravitational energy gradient while the nucleons exist in a region of very strong gravitational energy gradient. Yet, each orbital particle is entangled with a nucleon partner. Since the orbital particles exist in regions of weak gravitational energy gradient, they possess a significantly higher rate of e-m interaction, and a correspondingly faster rate of time, than that of their entangled nucleon partners. However, the entangled nucleons possess the same high rate of e-m interaction as their entangled orbital partners. But, since the nucleons exist in a region of very strong gravitational gradient, they would otherwise possess a slower rate of e-m interaction. So, as a result of entanglement, the nucleons possess significantly more energy-mass than their entangled orbital partners.
In the same strength gravitational energy gradient, would orbital particles and nucleons be identical? In other words, if nucleons existed in the same region that orbital particles exist (a long distance from the nucleus in a weak gravitational energy gradient), would they possess the same physical properties, including total energy-mass? If so, then the much larger nucleons simply exist in an environment in the atomic nucleus (i.e., very strong gravitational energy gradient, with nucleons entangled with orbital particle partners) in which nucleons represent a different phase than their much smaller orbital particle counterparts. This may be analogous to water existing as ice versus water existing as a gas.
Entangled partners in an atomic system may consist of orbital particles occupying the same orbital, and possibly orbital particles within the same energy subshell (e.g., 2p3, etc.). Keep in mind that each of these entangled orbital partners are also entangled with a nucleon that exists at a corresponding nuclear orbital, and energy subshell within the nucleus. The orbital particles entangled with orbital partners may act as a single energy entity, much like particles that act as bosons near absolute zero. The same is true with nucleons entangled with nucleon partners. They may also act as a single energy entity, essentially forming a “separate energy structure” that possesses its own quantum properties.
The question is: Do orbital particles entangled with nucleon partners also act as a single energy entity, forming a “separate energy structure” with its own quantum properties? This would create a quite complex atomic structure in terms of calculating net system quantum properties such as spin.
For purposes of the model presented on entanglednucleons.net, only the entangled nucleons are used to form separate structures that determine nuclear spin.
PHASES: Is it possible that elementary particles, themselves, exist in phases? As discussed above, this may be the case in atomic energy structures where otherwise “identical” particles may exist either as orbital particles or as much larger nucleons. Even outside the atomic energy system, elementary energy may exist as a particle, as a wave, as potential energy, as kinetic energy, as entangled energy, as disentangled energy. Could it be that when particles are entangled, they act collectively as a single energy entity in which one particle is not distinguishable from another, where entangled particles interchange identities with every e-m interaction? This entangled energy system may constitute a phase. On the other hand, disentangled particles act as distinguishable individuals, each with its own set of quantum properties. In this case, each disentangled particle possesses its own gravitational energy gradient, and non-alternating e-m directionality with every e-m interaction, so that its 2-D electric energy either moves outward from system center with each e-m interaction (i.e., electron) or its 2-D electric energy moves inward to system center with each e-m interaction (i.e., positron). Again, perhaps this condition constitutes a phase.
In the case of entangled energy systems, if they constitute a phase, that phase would be characterized as primarily wave-like – acting as bosons. Individual particles are indistinguishable and quantum properties, such as spin and charge, are directionally balanced within the single energy entity created by the entangled particles, and so they are also indistinguishable.
In the case of disentangled particles, they would exist in a phase characterized as primarily particle-like – acting as fermions. Individual particles possess the same e-m directionality with every e-m interaction. So a disentangled particle might be an electron always with the same e-m directionality – in this case with its 2-D electric energy moving outward from system center with every e-m interaction. The disentangled particle would possess quantum properties that are unidirectional or unbalanced, and therefore distinguishable.
This is not to say that a single energy entity formed by entangled particles would not possess some particle-like behavior due to its gravitational energy gradient, but it would possess predominantly wave-like characteristics due to its directionally balanced constituent particles that act as bosons.
On the other hand, the disentangled particle would possess some wave-like properties due to its 2-D electric energy oscillation through each e-m interaction. However, since its quantum properties, such as spin and charge are not directionally balanced, it acts as a fermion, and possesses predominantly particle-like properties.
Is it important whether these two energy systems represent phases? Maybe not, since we already know their properties and behavior. However, looking at something from a different perspective might spark an idea in someone that might lead to some significant new understanding.