Why We Still Don’t Have Quantum Nucleodynamics by Norman D. Cook

Norman

I've just read your essay for the 2nd time, and found the parts I understood very interesting and informative. I've cited the nuclear force derivation of Vladimir analogised with dipoles orbiting a toroid. The nuclear Tokomak and AGN then come into play, neither 'point like' and both with multiple spin axis. Things like Hopft fibration and magnetospheres are in the same family, which critically, are founded on the concept of motion. Could there be any analogy here with your visualisation of lattice nucleodynamics?

I believe your current lowly position shows that possibly the most pertinent part of physics is is too often ignored. I could really do with your input to a mechanism I consider in my own essay which relies on results of charge interaction at a nucleodynamic level. The macro results are astounding, if different to current physics because they work, but the interaction details I work up to may also I hope, give you food for thought. Certainly a good score coming your way whatever, and I hope you agree mine also worth one. I'll value your comments equally.

Many thanks, and best of luck.

Peter

Hello Norman. This is group message to you and the writers of some 80 contest essays that I have already read, rated and probably commented on.

This year I feel proud that the following old and new online friends have accepted my suggestion that they submit their ideas to this contest. Please feel free to read, comment on and rate these essays (including mine) if you have not already done so, thanks:

Why We Still Don't Have Quantum Nucleodynamics by Norman D. Cook a summary of his Springer book on the subject.

A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory by Eric Stanley Reiter Very important experiments based on Planck's loading theory, proving that Einstein's idea that the photon is a particle is wrong.

An Artist's Modest Proposal by Kenneth Snelson The world-famous inventor of Tensegrity applies his ideas of structure to de Broglie's atom.

Notes on Relativity by Edward Hoerdt Questioning how the Michelson-Morely experiment is analyzed in the context of Special Relativity

Vladimir Tamari's essay Fix Physics! Is Physics like a badly-designed building? A humorous illustrate take. Plus: Seven foundational questions suggest a new beginning.

Thank you and good luck.

Vladimir

Dear Norman,

I am happy to read your essay here and to learn more about nuclear interactions and structure.

You report the dichotomy between the IPM and LDM models. In a sense this remind me of the old dichotomy between the wave and matrix formulations of quantum mechanics. Both formulations were shown to be finally equivalent. Is there some possibility of that IPM and LDM models can be considered equivalent or quasi-equivalent at least for some range of the nuclear phenomena? For instance, it is possible to relate the long-range potential of the former model with the short-range potential acting only among nearest-neighbour nucleons of the latter; specifically, I have in mind some kind of screening.

And a second question. Can the lattice structure be obtained from the Laplacian of the density in the same way how we can obtain the lattice structure of a solid from the Laplacian of the electronic density?

As August Kekulé wrote: "Let us learn to dream, gentlemen, and then perhaps we shall learn the truth."

Regards

This is a good presentation and continuation of build-up on complex contemporary thought process. In PicoPhysics (current state) we have basics of quantization and integration of contemporary physics (fundamental laws of nature) including that deals with quantum states as well as structure of particles (photons, elementary particles, nucleus, atoms, molecules, matter. and astronomical objects like dark matter, stars, planets & asteroid, Cosmic background radiations as they all represent different state of Knergy in a continuous Matter-Cycle).

The PicoPhysics treatment is different. It looks at the universe through the prism of two realities - Knergy-matter that is Konserved and Space that is not. The interaction between them is stated simply as Space contains Knergy.

Picophysics view on Quantum Electrodynamics:

A PicoPhysicist believe the conservation of energy is the result of mismatch between relaxation time of space (the time space takes to react to change in distribution of Knergy) and the dynamics of confinement of Knergy in space. The relaxation time is represented by Hubble's constant of contemporary physics and is seen as continuous reduction of energy of photon as it travels through space. The quantization of Knergy is the result of Konservation in PicoPhysics and is absolute giving us a natural unit of measure. The interaction between two particles can be with/without exchange of these quanta of Knergy. Thus the view of PicoPhysics is somewhat in line with QED of contemporary physics.

Exception to QED: Except one difference that presence of photon as exchange particle in the interaction is not an absolute necessity for transfer of energy between two particles.

However, QED can also be seen as an attempt to explain away issue of wave particle duality. In PicoPhysics we don't have this paradox as the wave properties are obtained as interaction of Knergy-Matter with space. The wave-particle duality observations are well encapsulated in Unary law 'Space contains Knergy-matter'.

Since, I am working out a line of argument very different than contemporary thinking I do not go into details as presented in this essay. Overall it seems to be work coming out of a well documented study of subject and keen observation.

Dear Norman,

From PicoPhysics perspective, Quantum Nucleodynamics issue concerns Superposition. The energy content per unit Knergy of nucleon is proportional to Knergy density. However, when superposition takes place, it is no more dependant on Knergy density, but partial density of associated Knergy unit. For example an alpha particle have lower energy than 4 individual nucleons if each were occupying one fourth of nuclear real space, due to superposition induced reduction of associated energy.

Though nuclear stability is result of superposition, the factors that affect degree of superposition needs to be worked out by studying the cross-sections for various nuclear reactions. This is time consuming process, and need to be left to next generation.

Even if Quantization or probablistic nature is explained, currently we can answer in general - relative suseptibility of a defined nucleus for a nuclear reaction.

Thanks & Regards,

Vijay Gupta

Proponent - Unary law 'Space Contains Knergy'

If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

Dear Norman,

I have some simple models of atomic nuclei in the book: The physical theories and infinite nesting of matter.. Can you look at it and give me feedback?

Sergey Fedosin

I like your down-to-earth approach to nuclear structure! Binding energies, magnetic moments and quadrupole moments are essential empirical data that any sensible nuclear model must deal with. The smallest nuclei A

I have enjoyed your essay too. You have packed a lot into 11 pages and we will have to continue "off line", but my only criticism of your approach is that it covers so much. In your final figure (Fig. 4) seems to be the point from which you can "rebuild" the universe... conceptually similar to Tamari's starting point. I would be curious to see what that implies for the relatively "macroscopic" issues of nuclear structure.

Just one comment on your comment!

I remain "agnostic" on most subnucleon issues (quarks, partons and the essence of space-time). Maybe I am just wishy-washy Charlie Brown for that, but I suspect that there are (molecular, atomic and) nuclear structure problems that can and SHOULD BE addressed without postulating explanatory mechanisms from other levels. If they really explain things, that's fine. But if the "explanations" simply shift the puzzle to a different level, they don't solve anything. Conversely, if they are truly explanatory principles - like the Larmor frequency you point out - then the implications should be developed at various levels. Cheers.

Dear Norman,

The model I consider brings some new simple intuitions also to nuclear physics - maybe you will see them interesting. It is a search for configuration of interaction fields building particles - soliton particle model, but not only of single mesons or baryons like Skyrme model, but the ambitious goal is to find a "complete soliton model" - a relatively simple single field which family of local configurations would correspond to the whole particle menagerie and their dynamics. It can be seen as expansion by single dof of Faber's model, which reformulates Maxwell's equations to no longer allow for any charge, but as in nature: only multiplicities of the elemental one (Gaussian law counts topological charge).

Jumping to baryons, their structure in this model enforces some charge-like configuration, but does not require the whole elementary charge - some fraction is enough. So while total charge have to be quantized, locally it can split into quark-like local constructs, but this splitting is energetically costly - what naturally explains why neutron is heavier than proton or what holds deuteron together: proton shares part of its charge with neutron. The picture is on page 7 of my essay.

Do you think these intuitions sound reasonable?

With best regards,

Jarek Duda

Dear Jarek,

I find your essay to be a very plausible, intuitive way to build up quantum phenomena.

My first impression is that we need something like Tamari's model at the ground level, your model to introduce dynamics, and then something like Paolo Palazzi's summation rules (http://www.particlez.org/p3a/index.html) to get the spectrum of particle masses and lifetimes.

In that view, "nuclear structure" is rather macroscopic, but might be built from those coherent microscopic arguments.

Maybe we can reconstruct the massive edifice of theoretical physics after all!

Cheers

Dear Norman,

I was happy to kick you up the list and watch you get into the finalists. I don't really understand the mechanism by which you were knocked out after close of voting, but I know you belong there. I very much appreciated your essay and hope you will enter another one next year.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Norman,

Thank you very much for your supporting comments. I would love to finally start quantitative consideration, but it is a really tough job: finding the exact Lagrangian combined with performing really difficult numerical simulations. Unfortunately I cannot find cooperation to work on such nonstandard approach, prof. Faber shares the belief of "complete soliton model" existence, but he focuses on much more complex trial of expanding his basic model. Maybe you could think of somebody who could be interested in cooperation to move such approach forward?

About "building up quantum phenomena" - while I was on Emergent Quantum Mechanics congress a year ago (proceedings), most of the speakers were talking about double-slit experiment ... I think there are already good intuitions where quantum phenomenas come from (e.g. by great Couder's experiments) - they are the consequences of two factors: the wave conjugated with particle and that QM is kind of thermodynamical level theory - averaging complex dynamics, what is greatly seen e.g. in the shell nuclear model. I believe it is finally the time to search for concrete models below this effective quantum description, but looking at the congress, there are very few people interested in finally making the next step ...

About combining "complete soliton approach" with different models, it doesn't leave freedom for that: we just take a simple field (e.g. real symmetric tensor field) and Lagrangian: kinetic term (like Faber's interpreting field curvature as electromagnetic field) and potential term (Higgs-like - with topologically nontrivial energy minimum) ... and ask for consequences. Of course there is some freedom of choosing Lagrangian within a single approach, but most of consequences are very stiff - topological. So basically it is all or nothing approach - a single essential qualitative discrepancy and it probably goes to trash.

So practically the only way to combine it with other models is to see them as its effect - what can be very valuable while choosing the Lagrangian or to disqualify given approach. Thank you for the Palazzi's phenomenological models - I will try to see them through my model.

Cheers

Dear Norman Cook,

In a comment to Rob McEachern you remark that, " I too have a small collection of journal referee comments stating that my nuclear model is "inconsistent with the uncertainty principle" and therefore "not quantum mechanical" and therefore simply wrong - no matter what kind of agreement with experimental data is found."

You may find that your approach to the uncertainty principle receives some support in Physical Review Letters 109, 100404 (7 Sept 2012) in which the authors experimentally observe a violation of Heisenberg's "measurement-disturbance relationship" and demonstrate Heisenberg's original formulation to be wrong. I hope this is of some relevance to you.

Also, the same issue contains another paper, #103401, which addresses yet another approach to the 4% discrepancy in the proton radius determined by muonic-hydrogen experiments. They conclude that they have refuted all reasonable hypotheses aiming to resolve the "proton radius puzzle" with the help of three-body physics. Although I have not yet quantitatively solved this problem, my proton model is qualitatively consistent with reality.

Best wishes,

Edwin Eugene Klingman