Chemistry and life arise how?

The proper study of atomic orbital theory is rooted in nuclear structure. The geometric
configuration of the nucleus and therefore electromagnetic field produced by it determine
electron orbitals surrounding the nucleus. Of course, there are spin-orbit interactions which
determine a fair amount of spectroscopy / orbital dynamics / chemistry. But the bulk of electron
orbital structure (and therefore chemistry) is determined by nuclear structure.

It does sound strange to a chemist or biologist to hear, but i assure you - there really is no other
way to proceed starting from Iam space. So to study the chart of nuclides and how it arises is the
foundation of chemistry and biology .. Seriously, you can spend an entire lifetime formally
studying that chart. There are basically three types of regions in the chart: stable, marginally
stable, and highly unstable. Some nuclei are marginally stable and endure for millions of years.
Many are highly unstable and decay 'almost immediately' (in human time measuring schemes).
But there are some declared by nuclear chemistry to be unequivocally stable.

This concept, absolute unequivocal stability, is in direct conflict with Standard Model paradigms.
So chemists essentially ignore physicists adherence to PQM. Chemists know better. For the
purposes of chemistry and life, chemists know that certain nuclei are stable and therefore good
candidates for 'building blocks of life'. If they were nuclearly unstable, chemistry and life could
not manifest in this universe; life requires nuclear stability; stability is in direct conflict with the
Standard Model.

This awareness was actually one of the driving factors for Iam space. How can two main
branches of science be at such odds? It's unfathomable and untenable. Chemistry relies on
quantum principles such as in quantum chemistry - the theory of electron orbitals as accepted by
convention. There are essentially deterministic alternatives; i will not list them here; if you're
truly curious, you will find them.

One of the things that caught my eye/mind in the chart is 'metastable states' .. They're exactly
what they 'sound' to be: something nuclearly stable - but not really.. Just like WIMPs in
experimental nuclear physics, metastable states are a growing research area. They're both 'real
science' to me (as opposed to theories/research that depend on virtual bosons/Higgs). So if you
want to do real science, study metastable states and WIMPs over bosons..

WIMPs are good candidates to reinforce the Iam framework. They are not forbidden and may
relate to electron/proton/neutrino masses.. However, we should not base the theory on
detection/non-detection (as the Standard Model did so foolishly on Higgs - in that sense, he did
me a great favor by inventing it). Iam space is based on the centrality of TC/TR (temporal
curvature / temporal relativity). This basically says nothing about particle schemes. That's one of
the 'great benefits' of Iam space (some would say detraction because if you don't predict particle
schemes, how can it be verified?). There is one essential unspoken axiom of determinism:
inherent stability. If there are inherently stable nuclei/particles, how do they arise? What are the
determining factors for stability? If we ad hocly 'wave a magic wand' and simply declare some
particles are stable and some are not - we're no better than PQMers..
This is where discrete space comes in. If space is indeed discrete, that implies a kind of
'containment' on elementary particles. Space determines energy content, energy content
determines properties, properties determine interactions, interactions determine chemistry, and
chemistry determines life. So if indeed space is discrete, that determines whether or not life can
exist here.

The alternative to discrete space is more intuitive: we live in a continuous world/universe. It's
what we assume and perceive.. We don't perceive time as jumping from one moment to the next;
we perceive it continuously. Continuous time and space have been unspoken assumptions from
the beginnings of science. Only those fixated on 'watchmaking' are concerned with discrete time
(watches and computers 'tick' - not time - as we perceive it). If spacetime is continuous, then we
must necessarily define some structure creating paradigms. Structure must arise 'naturally' from
Iam space - if indeed Iam space is a good model of our universe.

So at this point, we're at a conceptual crossroads: is Iam space fundamentally discrete or

continuous? Which scheme makes the model more consistent/elegant? (We are after all 'elegance
hunters' are we not?) Even though the concept grates against me like an abrasive bozo in a bar, i
must concede it seems to be more consistent with Iam concepts.. It's conceptually repulsive
because we're raised to think continuously. But it may be preferable.

So we have a chance to do 'real science' yet again: when we determine the true structure of Iam
space, we discover the properties of our universe. Who will miss this opportunity to participate
and who will not? That's the question presently..

Will you?