DCLXVI LC

Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin · Ideas need parts.

DCLXVI LC Mechanical Engineering & Research

DCLXVI LC is an engineering consultancy led by Ben Đ Om, also known as Benjamin Peters. We bring mechanical engineering, practical experimentation, and independent research together to turn difficult questions into defined problems and testable ideas.

Selected work & experience

From reconfigurable forming tools to hands-on fabrication education and public engineering tools.

Explore the work →

About Ben Đ Om

Mechanical engineering, invention, and making. Read the background and independently published profiles.

Meet Ben →

Lattice Structure Manifold · Ben Đ Om

Two shapes.
Zero parameter.

A geometric route from the structure of space to the structure of matter.

LSM proposes that matter forms in the spaces between close-packed lattice nodes. Follow the construction, turn its shapes, check the charge, and test the mass accounting.

A construction you can inspect.

Zero parameter is the objective: one set of geometric and dynamical rules that determines the physical relationships without adjustable constants. Observations and fitting have narrowed the search. The final rules must explain why the selected values follow.

This page distinguishes three steps: geometry establishes what follows from the stated lattice and counting rules; physical interpretation identifies those structures with matter; experimental tests decide whether that identification describes nature. A working physical theory must connect all three.

01

Begin with packed space.

01 / The substrate

The geometry beneath matter

LSM postulates an effectively unbounded lattice of primordial black holes near the Planck scale. Its nodes form close-packed HCP or FCC arrangements; the spaces between them provide a second level of structure.

The spheres here represent the proposed nodes. HCP repeats two layers, ABAB; FCC repeats three, ABCABC. Their local interstices are the tetrah and octah shown above.

Exact equal-sphere packing fractionπ / (3√2) = 74.048%

This is occupied volume in ideal Euclidean packing. Identifying it with a dark-sector mass or energy fraction is a separate physical hypothesis.

Dark matter, dark energy and the 74% idea

The proposal associates the hidden substrate with dark matter and the expansion mechanism with dark energy. A volume fraction alone does not determine either energy density. Planck 2018’s base ΛCDM fit gives about 31.5% total matter and 68.5% dark energy; total matter includes both ordinary and dark matter. Planck Collaboration reference.

The existence, stability and close packing of Planck-scale black holes are model assumptions here.

HCP and FCC stacking

Finite patch of an idealized infinite substrate. Layer separation is a viewing aid; spheres return to contact at 1.00×.

Two interstitial shapes

Pack equal spheres until neighbors touch. Four hosts bound a tetrah; six bound an octah. Their walls curve inward around the hosts. The flat triangular openings connect adjacent interstices: four per tetrah and eight per octah.

Six surrounding spheres

Octah

O
Fixed view: octah, the curved space between six touching spheres

An octahedral interstice, shaped by six inward-curving spherical surfaces.

Four surrounding spheres

Tetrah

T
Fixed view: tetrah, the curved space between four touching spheres

A tetrahedral interstice, shaped by four inward-curving spherical surfaces.

Drag a model to rotate · scroll or pinch to zoom · arrow keys when focused · Home resets

What the shapes represent

Each curved model is the volume inside a four- or six-host convex cell after subtracting the host spheres. The particle constructions here use FCC interstices. HCP and FCC share the same bulk 2T:1O inventory but have different face adjacency; an FCC proof must not silently be applied to HCP. No physical length is assigned by a rendered view.

02

One neutral inventory. Four pieces.

For every host sphere, close packing supplies two tetrah and one octah in bulk accounting. LSM names the complete neutral inventory a Monad: one host S, two T and one O.

Monad = S + 2T + O
Four pieces · three geometric types

With a neutral host, neutrality requires 2qT + qO = 0. Identifying the eight-face shell with an electron gives 8qT + qO = −e. Together these fix the charge normalization below.

qT = −e/6   qO = +e/3
Q = 2O − T   q = Qe/6

Why two tetrah and one octah?

Eight T voids meet a host, each shared by four hosts: 8/4 = 2. Six O voids meet it, each shared by six: 6/6 = 1.

For a neutral mixed inventory, T = 2O. The smallest positive integer solution is 2T + 1O.

This proves the inventory ratio. A literal repeating tile of four whole pieces requires an explicit partition. An HCP primitive repeat contains two host sites; FCC admits a one-host primitive repeat.

Interactive ledger

Two counts. One charge rule.

Set the whole-cell inventory. These equations check charge and raw faces; counts alone do not establish a connected shape.

Q = 6 · q/e = 1 · F = 88

Q = 2O − T; q/e = Q/6; F = 4T + 8O.

The fully packed limit

A true monad has only flat faces

Ben's defining distinction: a true Monad is fully packed and every component boundary is flat. Its four-part inventory remains one host component, two tetrah and one octah. The sphere describes the undeformed host; in the true-monad limit the host is polyhedral.

Mtrue = Sflat + 2Tflat + Oflat
Planar boundaries · disjoint interiors · no unfilled volume · Q = 0

Flat faces do not require the three component types to become identical shapes. Ben proposes deep black-hole interiors as the physical realization of this limit. A deformation law and spacetime metric are needed to establish where that limit occurs. The adopted names Monad, Mobnad and Mocnad and their original T/O inventories remain as defined in the inventory below.

A constructive route to a flat partition

A weighted Voronoi cell at site pi contains points x satisfying |x − pi|² − wi ≤ |x − pj|² − wj for every j. Pairwise boundaries are planes, and the cells partition space with disjoint interiors. Applying this to host and interstice centers gives a precise family of fully packed constructions to investigate.

Site positions, weights, nonempty-cell conditions and face topology must still be specified. This construction does not automatically retain four physical faces for T and eight for O; the literal-face mass rule must be checked against the resulting cells. The 1S:2T:1O inventory is exact bulk accounting, while a four-whole-piece repeating tile needs an explicit assignment. An HCP primitive translation cell contains two host sites.

LSM neutral family · interstitial accounting
NameInventoryRaw facesCharge
Monad2T + O160
Mobnad4T + 2O320
Mocnad6T + 3O480

The names identify small, medium and large LSM neutrino structures. The complete Monad includes its host; a host arrangement for the larger names and the relation to observed neutrino rest masses still require a physical rule.

03

Close every face of an octah.

The LSM electron

8T + 1O

One central octah has eight triangular openings. Occupy every opening with its neighboring tetrah. The result has full cubic symmetry: 24 proper rotations and 48 symmetry operations including reflections and inversion.

Its charge is (2 − 8)e/6 = −e. Its mass inventory is 8 × 4 + 8 = 40 face incidences.

Ben identifies this structure as the electron within LSM. The proof below establishes a unique connected geometric minimum. Spin, propagation and interaction with fields are the physical predictions still needed.

LSM construction

Electron

e⁻
Fixed view: LSM Electron candidate: 8 tetrah and 1 octah, charge −1e

Cubic symmetry · Oₕ

Eight tetrah share all eight faces of one octah

8 T + 1 O−1e

Bare face count40

8 × 4 + 1 × 8

Exact result · fixed FCC lattice

The complete octah shell has an exact minimum property

“Fully filled” here means the central octah and all eight face-neighbor tetrah are occupied. It does not mean that the entire surrounding region contains no host spheres or remaining voids. The resulting cluster has full cubic symmetry Oh: 24 proper rotations and 48 operations including reflections/inversion. This is discrete cubic symmetry, not continuous rotational symmetry.

Declare the admissible class first: finite, nonempty unions of complete FCC interstitial cavities on one fixed, undeformed equal-sphere lattice; distinct cells do not overlap; connectedness means a shared triangular aperture of nonzero area. Use the LSM charge rule q/e = (2O − T)/6. FCC face adjacency is bipartite: each T has four O neighbors and each O has eight T neighbors.

  1. At q = −e, T = 2O + 6. Thus N = T + O = 3O + 6.
  2. O = 0 would require six T cells. In FCC no two T cells share a face, so that union cannot be face-connected.
  3. Therefore O ≥ 1 and N ≥ 9. Equality forces O = 1 and T = 8.
  4. With only one O, every T must directly touch it. The O has exactly eight available T face-neighbors, so all eight must be occupied. This uniquely fixes the shell, up to lattice symmetries.
q = −e and face-connected FCC ⇒ N ≥ 9;   N = 9 ⇔ 8T + 1O

The same argument gives minimum total occupied void volume at fixed host radius: V = (2O+6)VT + OVO, with both cell volumes positive. This is a specific compactness result. It does not assert a global optimum for every possible definition of compactness, such as radius of gyration or surface-to-volume ratio across changing volumes. Inspect the electron model

Proof of the connected surface-area minimum

Let I count occupied T–O face contacts and F count exposed triangular apertures. Counting faces gives F = 4T + 8O − 2I. Since every O has at most eight T neighbors, I ≤ 8O. At q = −e:

F = 16O + 24 − 2I ≥ 24

The electron shell achieves I = 8 and F = 24. For touching host spheres of radius R, each aperture has area a = (√3 − π/2)R². Define ΩT = 3 arccos(1/3) − π and ΩO = 4 arcsin(1/3). The curved host-wall areas per cavity are sT = 4ΩTR² and sO = 6ΩOR². All three areas are positive.

A(C) = TsT + OsO + Fa
A(C) − A(e-shell) = (O−1)(2sT+sO) + (F−24)a ≥ 0

Equality in this admissible class requires the unique nine-cell shell. Thus a proposed energy E = γA with γ > 0 selects that shell as its unique connected −e minimum. A is the full Euclidean boundary of the occupied cavity union, including the curved host interfaces. A counts neither a convex hull nor a relativistic event horizon. If LSM assigns a different energy to these interfaces, includes spectral terms, or permits lattice deformation, that energy requires its own minimization.

For reproduction, VT = [4/(3√2) − 4ΩT/3]R³ and VO = [8√2/3 − 2ΩO]R³. These are the curved void volumes, not face-count mass units.

Why the HCP/FCC distinction matters

In ideal HCP, an O has six T and two O face-neighbors; a T has three O and one T face-neighbor. The FCC proof above therefore does not automatically apply to HCP. A fully regular octah with eight regular face-sharing tetrah is an FCC-compatible local cluster. Embedding that full arrangement in an otherwise HCP substrate would require a local stacking change or another explicitly constructed defect. The current gallery already uses FCC, and is preserved.

What the theorem does not yet establish

Connectedness is a restriction, not a derived confinement law. Six mutually separated T cavities have total charge −e and area 6sT + 24a, less than the electron shell by 2sT + sO. They lie outside the theorem. If charge alone is conserved and such fractional fragments are allowed, the surface functional alone does not ensure electron stability. If T and O inventories are separately conserved, that particular comparison is inadmissible, and the allowed moves must say so. A physical completion must supply confinement/conservation rules and test all permitted fragmentation channels.

The bulk neutral ratio gives 2qT + qO = 0. Declaring the eight-face shell to carry −e then gives qT = −e/6 and qO = +e/3. This explains the charge normalization conditional on that identification; it is not an independent derivation of charge from geometry alone. Spin ½, fermionic statistics, inertial mass, propagation and measured electromagnetic behavior also require a dynamical construction.

04

Enclose a host. Complete the charge.

The LSM proton is 8T + 7O. Eight tetrah and six octah form the complete first shell around a host; one additional octah brings the charge to +e.

Fixed view: 8T plus 7O proton: eight tetrah and six octah enclose a host, with one exterior octah
Drag to rotate. Arrow keys rotate the focused view. Tetrah and octah checkboxes change visibility only. Flat cells are host-center references; they are not a solved compressed Monad.

Count the construction

8T + 7O

Whole cells
15
Charge / e
+1
Raw face incidences
88
Complete host cage
8T + 6O

The exterior octah supplies the missing +e/3. The complete cage now carries +e.

  1. Enclose the host.A complete FCC first shell contains 8T + 6O: fourteen compulsory cells.
  2. Count its charge.Q = 2 × 6 − 8 = 4, so the cage alone carries +2e/3.
  3. Add the missing +e/3.One octah contributes Q = 2 and can attach through a triangular face.
  4. Reach the lower bound.The fifteen-cell 8T + 7O cluster is a minimum +e construction containing this complete first shell.

Enclosure is the selection condition

The smaller 2T + 4O positron also carries +e. Charge alone therefore cannot select a proton. LSM uses complete host enclosure to distinguish this sector. A dynamical theory must explain why that sector persists and how it couples to the host.

The exterior octah connects through one face. The exact cluster has 25 shared faces, 38 exposed triangular apertures, and threefold C3v symmetry. The attachment is a specific fragmentation channel to test; a minimum cell count is not by itself a lifetime calculation.

Reconstruct the proton from exact coordinates

Use host positions at integer triples of odd coordinate sum and octah centers at the complementary integer triples. Set the selected host at (1,0,0). Put tetrah centers at all eight (1 ± ½, ±½, ±½); place six octah centers at the host plus or minus each coordinate unit vector; place the exterior octah at (2,1,1). Multiply coordinates by √2 for unit host radius.

Two cells share a face when their host-vertex sets share three vertices. The checker uses doubled integer coordinates, so contacts do not depend on drawing tolerances. Raw faces are 4 × 8 + 8 × 7 = 88; subtract twice the 25 shared faces to obtain 38 exposed apertures.

Flat host-center reference for the 8T plus 7O proton
Flat host-center cells show incidence geometry. They extend into host regions and do not establish a true-Monad space partition.

Read the standalone checker · Inspect the results · Exact coordinate inputs. The reproducibility files also retain the historical comparison.

05

Give every mass term a reason.

The geometric inventory makes the arithmetic explicit. The physical task is to derive the energy assigned to that inventory.

Reproduce the numbers

Integer inputs.
A test against observation.

Keep the node count at 73,360 and the proton shell at 88 faces. K subdivides every face; B subtracts a proton binding count. The electron is the calibration reference.

Mₑ = 13,840
Mₚ = 25,412,353

Ratio = 1,836.152673410405

Residual ≈ −0.487 quoted standard uncertainties.

Measured ratio: 1,836.152673426 ± 0.000000032 (2022 CODATA). A fit is a search constraint; deriving K and B is the next step.

05 / Mass and integer units

Count in integers. Derive the physical scale.

LSM's proposed microscopic description uses integer inventories and integer updates. Observations constrain which constructions to investigate; their decimal values in conventional units do not require decimal-valued microscopic constituents.

From counted faces to conventional mass units

An electron contains eight tetrah and one octah: 8 × 4 + 1 × 8 = 40 triangular face incidences. Define one bare face unit as one fortieth of the electron mass. The same rule can be written with a weighted cell count W = T + 2O. The earlier conversion 51.099895 keV/c² applies to one W unit, which contains four face incidences; it is not the mass of one literal face. All inputs and equations are given here, so no private spreadsheet is needed.

W = T + 2O;   F = 4T + 8O = 4W
mbare = W × 51.099895 keV/c² = F × 12.77497375 keV/c²

One literal face incidence therefore has the earlier conversion 12.77497375 keV/c². A shared interface contributes two incidences, one for each adjoining cell. This mass inventory is different from the exposed-face count. Updating the calibration to CODATA's electron mass changes the conversion to me/40 = 12.77497376725 keV/c²; calibrating from the electron is not an independent prediction of its mass.

The selected proton beside observation

Holding the existing node contribution of 73,360 face units fixed gives the following comparison. Applying that same contribution to the new cage is a stated assumption to investigate.

ConstructionInteger face-unit massRatio to the 40-unit electron
LSM proton · 8T + 7O73,360 + 88 = 73,4489,181/5 = 1,836.2
2022 CODATA observationMeasured reference1,836.152673426(32)

The bare construction differs from the measured ratio by +25.775 parts per million. Its remaining excess is about 24.184 keV/c², or 1.89306296 face units with electron calibration. This is larger than the measurement uncertainty.

Why a finer unit alone cannot remove the residual

For any +e T/O inventory, Q = 2O − T = 6, so F = 16O − 24. A neutral T/O core adds a multiple of 16. Relative to the 40-face electron, the bare additive ratios therefore lie on a grid with spacing 2/5. The measured ratio is not on that grid. Subdividing all faces equally leaves the ratios unchanged.

The next physical rule must account for binding, excitation, host coupling, or a different relation between face inventory and rest energy. The microscopic counts can remain integers. The additional contribution must follow from shared local rules rather than a separate adjustment for each particle.

A precise integer unit convention

Let K and H be positive integers: K mass/energy quanta per bare triangular face incidence, and H elementary action quanta in ℏ/2. Define compatible reference units:

q* = e/6;   μ* = me/(40K);   a* = ℏ/(2H)
E* = μ*c²;   τ* = a*/E*;   ℓ* = cτ*
In these units: c = 1;   e = 6;   ℏ = 2H
InventoryInteger charge QBare mass count
Tetrah−14K
Octah28K
Electron / positron−6 / 640K / 40K
Monad / Mobnad / Mocnad interstitial parts0 / 0 / 016K / 32K / 48K
Proton shell688K
Current neutral node073,360K
M = K Ftotal + Nexcitation − Nbinding
All counts on the right are integers.

Position is represented by integer lattice labels and evolution by integer update counts. H permits spatial/time refinement independently of K. A spin projection ℏ/2 has action count H. The unit definitions do not by themselves derive discreteness, the values K and H, or the binding and excitation counts. Host contributions to the Monad classes remain to be specified; the proton's node term is not silently added to every neutral inventory.

The 346 / 655 search result and its exact limits

For the selected cage plus the unchanged node, choose zero electron binding correction as the calibration reference and introduce one integer proton binding count B. Then Me = 40K and Mp = 73,448K − B.

An exhaustive positive-integer search for the smallest K matching the CODATA ratio within one quoted standard uncertainty gives K = 346 and B = 655.

Me = 13,840;   Mp = 25,412,353
Mp/Me = 25,412,353 / 13,840

This is an observation-constrained arithmetic fit. Neither 346 nor 655 has yet been derived from the geometry or an update rule. It demonstrates compatibility with one measured ratio, not a fit to the full particle spectrum. This quantum is about 36.9 eV/c², too coarse for the observed light-neutrino sector under a universal positive integer rest-mass rule. It is a search candidate, not the final fundamental scale.

Further constraints: neutrinos, geometry and couplings

The 2T + 1O interstitial inventory has bare mass 16 face units, about 204.4 keV/c². Its identification with observed light neutrinos needs an additional rest-energy, binding or propagation mechanism: KATRIN's 2025 result bounds the effective electron-neutrino mass below 0.45 eV/c² at 90% confidence. Adding a positive host mass does not resolve that discrepancy.

Integer coordinates can yield exact square-root distances. An octahedron's edge/diagonal ratio is invariant and irrational; changing units cannot make both lengths integer multiples of one common nonzero length. Integer microscopic inventories and update rules do not require every derived ratio or average to be an integer.

The gravitational constant and electromagnetic coupling remain dynamical constraints. This convention does not derive G or the fine-structure constant. The next task is a common local integer rule for binding, excitation and host coupling that reproduces the electron, a proton and light-neutrino behavior with the same parameters.

NIST mass reference · KATRIN result · Research derivation and historical comparison

The enclosed node

4,585: inside the proposed node

The proposal connects the roughly 1,800-fold baryon/electron mass scale to a node with 4,585 smaller constituents, and interprets the factor 2/5 as a clue to a “2, then 5” hierarchy of division or assembly.

An independent FCC count does contain exactly 4,585 lattice sites at r² = 168, with 48 sites on that outer shell. Here the FCC coordinates are integers with even x + y + z; nearest-neighbor distance is √2.

The geometric count is exact. The remaining selection problem is to show why physical stability selects this shell and why the 2/5 factor follows from the same construction.

The counted FCC sphere

4,585 sites total · r² = 168

Dots mark exact FCC site centers, not resolved black-hole horizons. Cutaway hides half the view without changing the total count.
Inspect the nearby count plateausFCC site count near squared radius 1684537 sites at 166 and 167; 4585 at 168 and 169; 4729 at 170 and 171. Each pair is a counting plateau.4,5854,2004,900160168176Squared radius (integer units)

Here N(166) = 4,537, N(168) = 4,585 and N(170) = 4,729. Every even/odd pair in this window shares a count because squared radii of even-parity FCC points are even integers. A counting plateau alone does not establish physical stability.

Where the 73,360 node contribution comes from
4,585 × (2T + O)
Fnode = 4,585 × (2 × 4 + 8) = 73,360
Fproton = 73,360 + 88 = 73,448
mp,bare/me = 73,448/40 = 1,836.2

The exact FCC site count supplies a candidate hierarchy. It does not explain why this radius is physically selected, why each counted constituent contributes one neutral inventory, or why enclosure adds this entire mass. Those are explicit assumptions in this mass calculation, to be resolved by the same dynamics used for other particles.

06

Turn geometry into dynamics.

06 / From geometry to dynamics

Inertia begins at the interface

The proposed source of inertia is coupling between a particle’s connected interstices and the surrounding lattice. Their shared planar openings interrupt the local curved geometry; accelerating the cluster would require the lattice response to change.

Ben describes this as “drag” on the lattice. To recover ordinary inertia, the required response is resistance to acceleration, while uniform motion remains possible without continual braking.

Recovering Newton’s laws requires a quantitative response law and momentum conservation. The geometry identifies candidate coupling regions; it does not yet derive those laws.

Where the proposed coupling acts

Proposed response at a shared planar regionA schematic cross-section marks a shared planar region between two curved interstitial cells, with arrows for applied acceleration and an opposing lattice response.AccelerationLattice responseShared planar regionSchematic section · proposed coupling
Target response: Freaction = −meffa
Illustrative response direction, not a computed force field. A velocity-dependent friction law would describe a different effect.

The rule that must connect the pieces

A complete LSM needs a local state and update law: which configurations can change, what is conserved, what energy each configuration carries, and how disturbances move. One rule must recover the electron’s confinement, the proton’s host coupling, the binding count and light neutral excitations.

The zero parameter objective makes this demanding and testable. Values selected during a data-guided search must ultimately follow from that common rule; fitting a separate correction to each particle would not meet the objective.

Beyond particles: the proposed expansion mechanism

A proposed cosmic extension

A mechanism for growing space

In the proposed mechanism, densely surrounded nodes cannot accommodate a larger merger product without rearranging their neighbors. Ben proposes that this local constraint, together with a drive to minimize surface area, produces outward pressure throughout the lattice.

Fusion-born neutrinos are proposed as feedstock: as their motion relative to the local lattice tends toward zero, they are incorporated into new nodes. Growth distributed through space would then drive expansion throughout space.

The incorporation process, merger constraint and expansion rate still need a dynamical law. No capture threshold or cosmological rate is assigned in this illustration.

The proposed growth cycle

  1. 01Fusion

    Rearrangement into denser nuclei

  2. 02Neutrino emission

    Small interstitial structures leave the reaction

  3. 03Local slowing

    Motion decreases relative to the proposed lattice

  4. 04Incorporation

    Neutrinos become lattice feedstock

  5. 05Node growth

    Distributed growth is proposed to drive expansion

Conceptual sequence from the theory; each transition is a proposed mechanism.
What Hawking’s area theorem establishesClassical horizon-area comparisonTwo equal Schwarzschild black holes of radius r compared with a mass-additive idealized final black hole of radius 2r. The final area is twice the sum of the initial areas.rr2rA before = 8πr²A after = 16πr²

For classical black holes under the theorem’s assumptions, total horizon area does not decrease: Afinal ≥ A1 + A2. This allows mergers; it does not prove that a crowded lattice forbids them. Observed mergers have been used to test the area law. Isi et al., 2021.

The diagram compares equal, non-spinning, uncharged holes with a hypothetical mass-additive final Schwarzschild hole, ignoring radiation. The LSM crowding rule requires an additional argument, especially near the Planck scale.

Inspect the other interstitial structures

T carries −e/6; O carries +e/3. The gallery shows T/O structures at independent display scales. Host mass is not silently assigned to the neutral excitations. The positron, neutral family and node are retained constructions; the full earlier catalog is available in the historical appendix.

07

Make the next result decisive.

The opportunity is a common microscopic account of charge, mass and matter’s response to space.

If it survives independent tests, such an account could change how researchers approach particle assembly, energy conversion and materials. The immediate opportunity is to establish that predictive foundation. The proposed applications depend on it.

A serious research program should buy a reproducible answer at each stage, with a clear stopping condition when a rule fails.

What is ready to inspect today

  • Exact cell coordinates and charge accounting.
  • A conditional electron minimum proof.
  • The enclosing 8T + 7O proton construction.
  • An explicit mass residual and integer search.
  • Public source checks and preserved derivations.
01 · Reproduce

Independent geometry audit

Rebuild the cells, verify adjacency and reproduce both minimum arguments without relying on the viewer.

Deliverable: an independently checked proof and contact ledger. A counterexample within the stated class refutes the corresponding minimum claim.

02 · Derive

One local physical rule

Specify states, energy, allowed moves and conserved quantities. Test electron fragmentation and the proton’s exterior-octah attachment.

Deliverable: an executable rule and stability calculations. Reject a rule that loses the identified particles under its own allowed evolution.

03 · Predict

A result withheld from fitting

Fix the rule before selecting independent particle or response measurements. Publish the predicted quantity and uncertainty before comparison.

Deliverable: a prospective test. The existing proton mass-ratio fit is not this test.

04 · Test transitions

Falsify the fusion animation

Use the current proton geometry to test proposed docking paths for overlap, impossible contacts and missing conservation terms, then define measurable consequences.

Deliverable: a reproducible pass/fail geometry test. Passing establishes admissible motion, not a reaction rate, energy yield or working reactor. Earlier private studies require revalidation with this proton.

Collaborate with Ben Đ Om

Fund a testable next step.

For independent mathematical review, computational physics collaboration or research sponsorship, start with a scoped milestone and the evidence that would settle it.

Discuss the research

Explore the proposed application program · Energy, fabrication, infrastructure and exploration. These are research directions, not demonstrated LSM technologies or promised returns.

Open calculations. Preserved history.

The current proton model is 8T + 7O. Earlier constructions are retired from this argument; their comparisons, figures and reasoning remain in the historical research appendix. The current explanation stands on its own without private documents.

Sources and evidence

Experimental reference values: 2022 CODATA constants, NIST. The neutrino constraint discussed above: KATRIN’s 2025 result. The lattice, cosmology and horizon references accompany their individual arguments.

Foundation check results · Foundation inputs · Full mass research note. Historical inputs and model comparisons remain labeled in these records.