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

Dear Norman Cook,

I'm sure you have enough difficulty swimming against the IPM stream without tying your theory to mine, but I have realized another way in which my theory supports lattice theory. Recall my self-induced flux tube model of the neutron. This model qualitatively explains the eternal(?) life of the proton versus the 800 second life of the neutron, unless the neutron is closely coupled to a nearest neighbor such as in deuterium or an alpha particle. Your lattice would seem to support such nearest neighnbor coupling with consequent extension of neutron stability for billions of years. A 'gas' model of neutrons (in which "the nucleus itself must be considered to be a tiny gas of "point-like" protons and neutrons that freely orbit within the nuclear interior.") in orbit about a central potential well would not extend neutron life at all.

One more reason for me to believe in your model (and in my own.)

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Many thanks for your comments again, Professor Asghar!

The various models of the nucleus have a long history, going back to the 1930s, and I often refer to the Fermi-gas model, the shell model and the independent-particle model (IPM) collectively as the "gaseous-phase" models. As you note, in fact, their theoretical foundations are quite different. The Fermi-gas model was little more than an analogy with the gas contained within a fictitious boundary. The early shell model was constructed around the idea of a central potential well - in analogy with atomic structure, but of course without any central attracting object that could act as the central potential. The "central potential well" was assumed to be the net result of the many local, nucleon-nucleon interactions... an interesting idea, maybe, but purely hypothetical as a mechanism for binding nucleons together into a stable nucleus. Everyone understood and most textbooks acknowledged that the central potential well was a dubious ploy, but the shell model nonetheless had many theoretical successes.

As you have commented, the modern IPM utilizes a nuclear force. From the perspective of theoretical coherency, the use of a realistic short-range nuclear force is huge progress. Unfortunately, the modern IPM also requires a theoretical "trick" to make the model work. That is,the Pauli exclusion principle must be "enhanced" to maintain the "gaseous" phase that the short-range force, on its own, would not allow.

As connoisseurs of nuclear structure theory well know, the exclusion principle was first suggested by Weisskopf in 1950 as a possible mechanism to allow nucleons to move like the particles within a gas under the influence of the shell model's (fictitious) central potential well. He argued that "exclusion" might justify the shell model's underlying theoretical assumptions, but the exclusion principle has been, over the decades, gradually "enhanced". Instead of a simple statement that "no two fermions can have the same set of quantum numbers" (which was Pauli's original formulation of "exclusion"), the exclusion effects have been referred to as "Pauli blocking" and even as the "Pauli force". It is not clear, dynamically, what that "force" is (and others have complained about this reification of Pauli exclusion into a force of nature), but without the "blocking" of the powerful short-range nuclear force effects, the nucleus would condense into a high-density liquid or solid.

That is of course precisely what the fcc lattice version of the IPM predicts. If it is assumed that, without a Pauli "force", nucleons condense to a solid of nucleons (a close-packed, antiferromagnetic face-centered-cubic lattice with alternating proton and neutron layers), then it is easily shown that the properties of that particular lattice neatly reproduce all of the quantum number properties of the nucleus - for which the IPM is justly famous.

So, I return again to the seemingly paradoxical position that I have stated before: I fully agree with Prof. Asghar that the "shell model" (IPM) has been wildly successful over many decades. Those successes cannot be ignored, but I maintain that the gaseousness of the shell model (and the implied nucleon orbiting and the Pauli blocking of the inevitable collisions of orbiting nucleons) is not necessary to explain the IPM quantal regularities, insofar as the lattice contains the same regularities. From a conventional point of view, it may seem unfair for the "new kid in town" - the fcc lattice model - to stake a claim for the shell model's theoretical successes, but I maintain that it is simply uncertain which model is mimicking the other!

Without the quantum mechanical properties (the independent-particle states) of the IPM, the extensive and rigorous data on thousands upon thousands of nuclear isotopes become incoherent, so that the known shells and subshells of the IPM - and the occupancies of nucleons in those shells and subshells under the influence of the exclusion principle - appear to be essential. But I think that factors of serendipity and chance, more than logical necessity, led to the overwhelming predominance of the gaseous-phase shell model and it becoming the central paradigm of nuclear structure physics, while Wigner's original proposal of the lattice structure of the nucleus in 1936 was seen simply as a mathematical analog (and Everling's suggestion of the lattice as a coherent nuclear model in 1958, and Lezuo's solid-phase formulation in 1974, and subsequent developments in the same direction have been ignored).

There are undoubtedly other criteria that can distinguish between the solid-phase and the gaseous-phase models, but it appears that neither model can assert that the well-established independent-particle systematics of the nucleus unambiguously supports one model over the other.

I know that all is suimposed with a pure discrimination of me.You shall pay for this strategy and also for the bad implied. Your only one solution is to kill me before that I arrive in USA. and be sure I will come soon, very soon. I love the USA , you cannot lie about my faith and my heart. You cannot invent falses things for your own vanity and strategy.New York you say, ok my friends, no probelm.IO am a real christian, me , I have read the bibble at the age of 16.You think really that you can make all what you want , when you want and how you want and for what you want.Let me laugh dear vanitious, dear badband. Let me laugh.Even dead I wilml come in your dreams during the night, just to explain you your errors and what is the spherization. You cannot win.be sure.me alone with a weak pc at home psychologically weak, and without monney and you with your tools and your hate.you shall loose here on earth or after my death, it is not a probelm.I have my list. I know these persons, I know you my friends. Even with your superimposings of threads and checking of my pc, be sure ,you shall understand. You have just an idea of me at home with the youngs. You do not imagine my sufferings in the past. You do not imagine my life.I had an enterprize at 23 years old.Politicians have caused me a bankrupcy. I am still alive. You know really that I am goin,g to be at home always with my smoke. Let me laugh. Will laugh well who will laugh at the end !!!

I know the team of bad persons from New York.But don't forget a thing my friends, your country is the country of the freedom.And also that it exists wonderful persons at New York. I will change this town me.You you destroy it !

Revolution spherization of NEW YORK my friends.Irritating no? you fear , logic.You are going to make an other strategy, logic.You are going to make a reunion.Logic. But I arrive my friends. You thought that it was possible with the spinoza godelian approach in a cantorian road for a respect of Einstein.Me also I am a rationalist and also an universalist and also a real innovator. Let me laugh. New york, I arrive for the spherization revolution optimization.

1 composting at big scale

2 increase of vegetal mass

3 revolution spherization of high spheres.

4....

Regards

Dear Norman Cook,

To my opinion Quantum Nucleodynamics exist only in 2D World.

See my essay with my own Appendix comments

You can start with comments.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413

there you do not delete , no but frankly Brendan. You know what ? it is not very well all this strategy from a team of vanitious full of hate. It is not acceptable. Fqxi is an universal platform. These strategies are simply bizare.

You delete like you want in fact in function of your strategy with your friends. It is bizare.It is not well. Just for a discrimination of me. You find all that logic and well you.

Persons making these kind of things are not generalists or universalists, it is not possible. Shocking in fact. The sciences community must be transparent and universal. It is essential. So why these bad comportments. I beleive simply that it is a question of vanity, of taste of opulences and money, a question of hate and unconsciousness simply. In fact, people lacking of competence the most of the time acts in this sad line of reasoning.Probably that it is due to education or I don't know me. the hormons also perhaps.The jealousy, the hate and the spite more the vanity are really catalyzers of these kind of comportments. It is simply a sad reality. I knew that people are ready to all to satisfy their own vanity and their taste of money. Let's pray for them.Hope they shall evolve after all, it is the most important.

Spherically yours

http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=dr625064p1460082&size=largest

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.

Hi Juan,

Thanks for the comments.

I think the different nucler models are in fact each "correct" in their own way. There should be ways to translate between them, and the fcc lattice is one such translation mechanism.

I have struggled to find a more appropriate expression for the lattice coordinates. Maybe the Laplacian of the 3D structure would connect more directly with experimental data somehow, but I keep returning to the simplicities of 3D solid geometry. The advantage of solid geometry is that it is easy to understand. The disadvantage is that it appears to be "pre-modern" and a crazy attempt to return to the world of earth-fire-and-water and platonic solids. I don't think that is the case, but in fact few nuclear structure theorists have even commented on the strange (but wonderful) identity between nuclear symmetries and fcc symmetries.

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