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..