Two models of deuterium

For simplicity, we'll use the abbreviations Standard Model = SM and Other Model = OM (as more fully detailed in previous essays). Please view the attached image.

The top diagram of deuterium is presented within the SM:
*the heavy Gaussian waves on top represent probability waves of mass-energy and position
*between the proton and neutron, there's a virtual pion binding them (representing many)
*between the proton and electron, there's a virtual photon binding them (representing many)
*for each of the three, there's a virtual Higgs defining mass (representing many)

The bottom diagram of deuterium is presented within the OM:
*the heavy Gaussian waves below represent spherical standing waves of temporal curvature
*between the proton and neutron, there's real shared curvature
*between the proton and electron, there's two oppositely charged anti-photons (representing many)
*the proton and electron each have a surface charge which attracts anti-photons
*the dashed line below indicates a kind of 'residual' or 'far field' TC = gravity

As we can see, each model of deuterium only has four assumptions, relating to elementary particles, so they're 'equivalent' under Occam's Razor. However, the OM has the dual advantage of being real and explaining gravitation. In addition, the OM integrally explains relativistic and gravitational time dilation as enhanced TC. Each model is assumed to have equivalent defining parameters such as: 'bulk of mass-energy contained within a certain volume' (of course, they mean different things in each model) or alpha (the fine structure constant). The SM (via QED) says alpha is "the coupling constant determining the strength of the interaction between electrons and photons". In the OM, alpha represents the average anti-photon density in our neighborhood. Self-interference? The wavelet nature of e.p.s. Any further questions, please consult previous essays.

A direct way to test between them is measurement of alpha:
the SM says alpha should be isotropically uniform in our universe (no reason not to be)
the OM says alpha should change minutely depending on local anti-photon production
 (stars produce anti-photons every time they produce photons in a balanced curvature scheme)
 (nuclear reactors produce anti-photons every time they produce photons as above)
So alpha should be slightly different near nuclear reactors and stars. Exactly how much different has not been determined yet. An educated guess tells me at most 16.5%. Balanced curvature is the theme behind the particle scheme in the OM. Our universe is flat; there must be a global balance between matter and anti-matter including photons/anti-photons. Anti-photons must be free to 'move about' (and exceed c). Primordial anti-matter (with negative TC) is not gravitationally bound to the 'normal matter' in our universe and so must represent the physical boundary of total matter here. The spatial boundary is assumed to be determined by a very large hyper-torus. This is the simplest realistic scenario envisionable reversing the momentum pattern of galaxies toward a primordial singularity (or two). What exploded that/those is left to your imagination. ;)

Another direct test between theories (the notion of 'bare charge'):
the SM supposes bare charge exceeds measured charge due to virtual shielding
the OM supposes bare charge is opposite the surrounding cloud of anti-photons
 (the closer we probe toward the surface charge, the more opposite it should measure)

So we have two explicit direct tests between competing theories of our universe.