Proton { Stable } Neutron { not stable }
 

The surface of a cube is subscribed by 4-fold 6 great circles { tori } of 3-fold tetra{4}hedron. See LINK

Proton is most stable fermionic matter humans know to exist and in Rybonics, defined by the above mentioned very stabilized 6 great circles { tori }.

Two great circles { tori } = one quark and two quarks { 4 great VE circles/tori = a meson { bosonic strong nuclear force } but two quark combinations as found VE are unstable ergo mesons are very unstable and very short lived particles.

So why is the neutron { neutral charge } differrent from the protons 6 great circles { tori }? We might ask similar question regarding neutrality of neutrinoes.

Obviously, in the case of the neutrons ---same set of 6 great circles { tori }----, it is the geometric relationship that makes them not as stable as the proton.

Since each of the 6 tori have a two flat curvature areas, ---that are halfway positions between peak positive and peak negative curvature ergo neutral { flat curvature } --- I wonder if it is way the trajectories { 0--->1--->2--->3 etc --that define each tori--- interact with other in regards to these flat neutral places, that make those 6 very stable and charged { proton } or less stable as neutron { no charge }?

Here is LINK to three kinds of Gaussian curvature



https://groups.io/g/synergeo/attachment/551/0?thumb=1

Physics creates models to try to represent what it is believed to be the reality for the present knowledge.
Physic models must have mathematic models too to explain why they work.
Nevertheless, all the Physic models have limits. Quantum Physics for example is plenty of paradoxes that came out with experiments.
Of course, more complex is a model and easier is to find paradoxes. I believe Super String model was created intentionally "simple" to avoid paradoxes, but it didn't.
Your question should be directed to those scientists who created that model.
No great scientist will ever claim "this model is the true representation of reality", but rather "this model is the closest representation of reality in according to our present knowledge"

Physics creates models to try to represent what it is believed to be the reality for the present knowledge.
Physic models must have mathematic models too to explain why they work.
Nevertheless, all the Physic models have limits. Quantum Physics for example is plenty of paradoxes that came out with experiments.
Of course, more complex is a model and easier is to find paradoxes. I believe Super String model was created intentionally "simple" to avoid paradoxes, but it didn't.
Your question should be directed to those scientists who created that model.
No great scientist will ever claim "this model is the true representation of reality", but rather "this model is the closest representation of reality in according to our present knowledge"

You would think a proton would be more stable than a photon although calling your self an atom awaiting a photon is something else...what would it be called?

Sounds like kids playing with toys . Non of what the OP said is anything more then atomistic and guess work none of you particles in that dilemma have ever been proven to exist therefore if you don't understand something just change it that's what scientists do all the time to make it fit their hypothesis