|
Interlocked Nuclear Fields:
Although the idea of a soft nucleus is contrived here solely
to satisfy our ideas about gravity, it leads to other speculation regarding the fundamental nature of nuclear interactions and structure:
1) Reconsidering the nuclear "strong force":
Once nucleons are fused (or interlocked) the resulting field
entity (combined nucleons) rests at its lowest energy level. Hence no additional mechanism is needed to hold nucleons together. In other words, any two (or more) interlocked nucleons would essentially constitute one, single field entity. Intuitively...we are prone to imagine that one, single field entity would be far more difficult to disassociate than two individual field entities. With this model, then, the so called "strong force" is attributed to interlocking of nuclear fields; and is integrally "built in" to the natural structure of the nucleus. So, there is no need for a separate nuclear 'strong force' (or quark interaction) as required in the standard model.
[Interlocked intrinsic isospin of individual nucleon fields
might also contribute to the stability of the nucleus.]
Let's make the wild assumption that nuclear field density
throughout the nucleus tends to remain consistent; and that the value of this density is based on the field density of the nucleons themselves...each separate nucleon having (approx.) identical field densities.* In this case, any overlapped areas of nucleon fields, at the moment of fusion, would be twice the normal nucleon field density.
So, one-half of this doubled field density may be thought
of as 'redundant'. Consequently, in this system's tendency to attain its lowest energy level (i.e. to maintain equilibrium in its overall field density), 'redundant field density' is expelled from the newly-fused nucleons
and radiated away . And, where condensed field
energy is radiated away, so is mass radiated away. (See fig.3.)
(As a further consequence, fused nucleons are now co-
dependent on the remaining shared field energy--thus constituting a single nuclear field entity; manifesting the so called "strong force" between nucleons.)
___
|
|
Matter
Section 7 |
|
A General Model of the Nucleus:
In this nuclear model, each nucleon is visualized as a highly
condensed field of electromagnetic energy. We will thereby describe these particles as "soft".
By virtue of this visualization, each nucleon is physically
permeable by any other nucleon; (just as each nucleon is permeable by the fixed magnetic field continuum in space.) We could say, then, that nucleons are somewhat translucent to each other; and that the atomic nucleus is represented by "interlocking" nucleons who share some part of their field volume with adjacent nucleons. (See figure 1)
Such a system of field-sharing might be readily compared to
covalent molecular bonding--where separate atoms share the same electrons (and therefore share the same electric fields.) |
|
This image of overlapping circles depicts
an approximation of the consistency of the nucleus as I would imagine it...if we could actually see it. (Though, this does not necessarily represent the geometry of any nucleus.) Each circle represents a nucleon in this visualization. |
|
Interlocking nucleons. A
fused proton and neutron (or deuteron) constitute a single nuclear field. Each nucleon shares some volume of field with its neighbor. |
|
Neutron Decay
So, both protons and electrons--we stand convinced [at least I do]--are basically made of
condensed 'light energy'. This, in agreement, is exactly what E=mc^2 tells us...except the equation goes further to tell us exactly 'how condensed' that light energy is.
As long as a neutron remains in the nucleus--attached to a proton(s), it will endure for the
lifetime of its companion protons--virtually forever. But once a neutron is isolated--separated from protons--its lifetime is limited to about 15 minuets. When its time is up, an isolated neutron always decays into one proton, one electron, and one anti-neutrino. (The neutrino, in this case is considered as a special companion of the electron--the two are specifically associated. See the note on neutrinos below.)
Since, in this decay, the neutron completely vanishes--leaving behind two entities of condensed
electromagnetic energy (electron and proton) it seems very likely that the neutron, itself, is a highly condensed electromagnetic field energy. |
|
A Note on the Neutrino
After some 58 years of uncertainty as to whether the neutrino possesses the property of
mass--or not, it was determined in 1989, by experimentation and measurement, that neutrinos do indeed have a teeny-tiny, non-zero mass value. Although there is a good deal of uncertainty, complicated by the fluctuations of three types of neutrinos, scientists estimate neutrinos weighing in at about 0.05 to 2.0 electron volts (equivalent to the energy of a light photon divided by c^2.)...almost nothing---but not nothing. (See 'Neutrinos' in the links below for their history and properties.)
This comes as good news. For if the neutrino had turned out to be truly massless, it would
have complicated any pure-field image of the universe. It would have meant that this elusive (though omni-present) 'particle' was impermeable by whatever field-continuum in space that not only carries the message of gravity everywhere but endows matter with the property of mass. In other words: If the neutrino had turned out to be massless, it would have meant that this "particle" was the only true solid in the universe. And such a species as a "true solid" would have confounded the simplicity of a pure-field image of matter and space. The happy news, then, is: All particles are soft--including the neutrino. |
|
Soft Matter
Here we visualize all material particles as highly-condensed electromagnetic
fields. This includes the atomic nucleus and its baryon parts. To abbreviate this image, we will say that all fundamental particles are "soft".
We contrive this visualization because we need to fit the nucleus (and all
material particles actually) in with the ideas for gravitation proposed on this website. (See Sections 1 through 5.) According to these ideas, a magnetic field continuum throughout space is modified by field properties of matter. We call this modified continuum "material altered space"...or MAS. (See gravity potential .) So gravity, here, is described by a virtual continuum between fields of MAS. In other words, objects in space are not "attracted" to each other (as Newton might suggest) but rather, MAS fields within those objects are physically continuous with each other by virtue of continuous space.
But now we need to be more specific; and extend the idea of MAS to the atomic
nucleus; since nucleons (i.e. protons and neutrons) account for most of the mass (hence gravity potential) of an object. In order to apply the idea of MAS to the nucleus, the nucleons, themselves, must be "soft" fields--so that they are permeable by the fixed magnetic continuum in space.
Combining the ideas of a soft nucleus and MAS yields a far more intense image
than portrayed in Sections 1 through 5. The hybrid concept suggests a virtual continuum between nuclear MAS fields everywhere. (Example: the altered fields within the composite of all nuclei that make up the Earth are virtually continuous with all those that make up the moon. That's gravity...according to this image.) Since we are now dealing with altered space within nuclear fields, this becomes a far more difficult visualization to cope with. [...too difficult for me now.]
It turns out, though, that there is a substantial data--theoretical and empirical--
that support (perhaps conclusively) the notion of a "soft" nucleus. So, upon producing this data, we could rest our case and stop right here. However...the idea of soft nucleons breeds fresh speculation in regards to the basic structure of the nucleus; and the fundamental forces associated with it. So, since we are on the subject of "matter", let's take a look at that. |
|
The standard model of matter:
I wont pretend to understand matter--how it is created...or what it is. Modern
atomists showcase an increasingly complex array of particles they call the "standard model". With the standard model there is a special particle for every task--one carries the electromagnetic force; while another carries gravity; one supplies mass while others determine charge. One is responsible for the attraction between two others while a fourth is responsible for their repulsion. Add the 'virtual particles', 'anti particles', and 'theoretical particles', the Standard Model becomes so confusing that you truly need to be a nuclear physicist to follow it--even on a conceptual level (let alone the math.) I, as a layman, am far from qualified to judge this model, but I am inclined to beleive Einstein when he says "The quanta are a mess." Many physicists, however, say that this is a 'simple model'. [Is it simple or confusing? You decide-- start here.] (Also see Particles and the Standard Model links below.)
Hopefully, one day, scientists will discover an underlying simplicity to the standard
model. In the meantime, please forgive me if I try to avoid it here. Instead, I will present some simple conceptual ideas; which may or may not fit within today's models of matter. Specifically, we will consider the atomic nucleus. |
|
"The smallest units of matter are in fact not physical objects in the
ordinary sense of the word; they are forms." --Werner Heisenberg |
|
"If I could remember the names of these particles I'd be a botanist."
--Enrico Fermi |
|
Figure 2
|
|
Quarks
Note that the above model all but ignores quarks; whereas, in the standard model, all nuclear
interactions (like this one) would involve complex interaction between quarks and pions via gluons.
Often, in discussions of the standard model, you see the term "...discovery of quarks." or the like.
The word "discovery", in this case, means that some predicted value of energy was successfully detected in a particle accelerator or cloud chamber; (or nuclear sub-structure revealed in electron scattering experiments.) The beauty of quark theory is the assertion that quarks, which are defined by their intrinsic n/3 electric charge, can not be observed except in groups of 2, 3 or 5 (and now in 4)--in every case the n/3 charge cancels to yield an integer charge of +1, -1 or 0. So, actually, no isolated n/3 charge has ever really been observed. [See 'quarks' in the links below for the various 2, 3,4, 5. combinations]
Although quark theory has been very successful and is widely accepted; and although some
predicted multiple-quark masses have been repeatedly detected, I think it is fair to say that "This is ONLY THEORY until such n/3 charge is actually observed"--(which, according to theory, may be never.) If, however, the quark model is accurate, it would serve to refine the crude nuclear model presented here; and would only enhance the idea of MAS within the boundaries of nuclear fields. |
|
Figure 1.
|
|
A simple test for the above nuclear model:
We would expect the measured diameter of the nucleus of a carbon 12
atom, for example (see (a)), to be somewhat less if the nucleons were interlocked (b), then if they were in a close-packed configuration (c). If this is not so, we can reject the nuclear model proposed above. [In the case of the Carbon 12 atom, I'm guessing about 4% less diameter.] |
|
"We could regard matter as the regions in space where
the field is extremly strong...." --Albert Einstein |
|
Figure 3
|
|
Fusion:
Soft nucleons--proton and
neutron--interlock to synthesize a deuteron nuclear field. The area "y" represents a volume of nuclear field that both nucleons share in common.
At the very moment of fusion,
the y-field density is doubled; so one-half of the doubled y- field density (Ey) is emitted to equalize the over-all density of the nuclear field. Now, both nucleons rely on the remaining 'y'-field energy. |
|
Website indexes:
|
|
MatterSection:
|
|
Fission: Continuing with this deuteron example, in the case of separation (i.e. fission) of proton and
neutron, it seems likely that the proton carries away all of the shared "y" field energy; while the neutron carries away the deficit. This possibility is indicated by the proton's continuous existence; while the neutron decays within 15 minuets or so. (See neutron decay below.) (See deuteron decay here.) |
|
Copyright/van/2005--ok to copy.
|
|
Neutron Decay
To the right, three graphics (A, B, C)
illustrate the process of neutron decay, from three different perspectives.
(A) expresses direction of emissions in
relation to neutron iso-spin;
(B) is the familiar Feynman diagram which
includes the very massive though short- lived W- boson or "virtual particle". (Note: We think of the W- boson as an "event" here--as apposed to a "particle".)
(C) is my attempt to show neutron decay
with respect to 'interlocked fields'. Step (a) is the neutron, viewed as a unit, before decay begins. Step (b) indicates division of electron and proton field energies and suggests that the neutrino energy comes from the shared field of interlocked electron and proton. Step (c) includes the W- event--where quantum exclusion properties overwhelm electrostatic properties of 'attraction' between positive and negative charges.* (Not shown: the shared field (the neutrino) is briefly carried away by the electron. Traumatic separation of the "particles" would be the W- event.)
[This is all very cartoonish and vague, I
admit; after all...this is not physics.] |
|
<<Fusion--A deuteron example (Figure 3.)
Let's say that the "y" represents the volume of shared field of
interlocked (fused) proton and neutron at the very moment of fusion. At that moment, the overlapped "y" field density would be (approx.) twice the normal field density of either nucleon. So 1y (or Ey) represents the energy value of redundant nuclear field density. Since the nuclear field's tendency is to retain equilibrium in over-all field density, the redundant field density is expelled (i.e. radiated) from the fused nuclear field. And where EM field-energy is radiated away, so is mass radiated away. This notion might be abbreviated:
Rm=Ey/c^2 (Where Ey is the radiated nuclear field energy; and Rm is
its mass equivalent.) With deuteron, the measured mass defect is about 0.1%; so each nucleon shares about 0.1% of its nuclear field volume with the other nucleon--according to this model. |
|
(A)
|
|
(B)
|
|
(C)
|
|
Particles and the
Standard Model: |
|
Quarks:
|
|
Particles and waves:
|
|
Electrons:
|
|
Protons and Neutrons:
|
|
Neutrinos:
|
|
Fields and energy:
|
|
Support for Soft Matter:
The culmination of the below referenced statements give strong indication that all
material particles are highly condensed electromagnetic fields; and/or can otherwise be described as "soft": |
|
Electron scattering reveals a 'soft', spherical nucleus:
|
|
Fundamental particles are created from electromagnetic energy; also decay into
electromagnetic energy, in accordance to the equivalence E=mc^2--suggesting that they ARE electromagnetic energy in a condensed geometric form: |
|
Tools:
|
|
Electrons:
The modern picture of the electron is conceptualized by two circular (or
spherical) standing waves, which interact to produce the electron effect. Here are two concurring views: |
|
[Whenever I see the word "waves"--(exclusively), as an explanation in
physics, I need to ask myself: "Waves of what?" The only possible answer, of course, is "electromagnetic waves"...whatever they are.] |
|
W-
|
|
____
*Note that we are applying exclusion-like properties
to field density. |