Why the Nuclear Force Doesn’t Exist

Atom With Nucleus And Electrons – InsideSources

The nuclear forces (strong and weak) are the forces that hold the nucleus of an atom together, counter acting the repelling force exerted on protons by their positive charges.

When the strength of these forces are inadequate to counter the force pushing the nucleus apart it results in radioactive atoms that over time decay by splitting into smaller elements or emitting particles.

The particles emitted have been identified as neutrons with no electric charge, alpha particle, consisting of two protons and two neutrons, with a positive charge, and a beta particle or electron with a negative charge.

When a neutron is emitted the element remain the same with the same chemical properties just a different mass. When an alpha particle is emitted the atom becomes a new element with different chemical properties.

The alpha emission can be considered an element splitting into a helium atom and another element.

Beta emission involves the nucleus ejecting an electron from the nucleus by splitting a neutron into an electron, proton, and gamma ray. It then become the next larger element in the periodic table.

In essence by emitting an electron from its nucleus the atom becomes a larger atom which poses serious problems for the theory of the atom.

The electron is emitted from the entire atom being detected as radiation. The atom does not capture the electron transforming into the higher element. This means that enough energy must be given to the electron to split it from a neutron, overcome the increased attractive force of the protons, and be propelled through the repelling force of the surrounding electrons.

The question arises where does this energy come from? It certainly doesn’t come from the electromagnetic force that force is trying to retain the electron in the nucleus. It doesn’t come from gravity which is another attractive force. The only remaining source of energy is the strong and weak nuclear forces.

How could a force that binds a nucleus together cause the ejection of a particle that would act as a glue and help hold the nucleus together? This binding energy is believed to be the energy released in fission nuclear reactions providing the energy for atomic bombs and nuclear power plants.

Atomic Bomb Facts

If their combined force is not strong enough to form a stable nucleus to begin with how can the use of some of their energy to eject a particle helping hold the nucleus together result in a stronger nuclear force overcoming the repelling force of an increased number of protons and forming a stable atom? It can’t, but this is the result of beta decay.

Something is wrong with theory.

The first part of theory that needs to be corrected is the definition of a neutron. A neutron is not a subatomic particle without a charge. It is a subatomic molecule, like an alpha particle, but with both a negative and positive charge, made up of an electron and a proton, not quarks.

This definition conforms to the properties of the neutron and the experiment that gave rise to it and also explains an unexplainable action of the neutron.

When an electron and proton combine to form a neutron it is an energy producing reaction. Kinetic energy is given to the components by the attractive electric force which then is contained in the neutron.

Alpha Decay, Alpha Decay Equation | Chemistry@TutorVista.com

When a neutron is not confined in the nucleus of an atom it spontaneously decomposes into an electron, a proton, and a gamma ray in ten minutes. This is also an energy producing reaction where the components of the neutron are given enough kinetic energy to keep the molecules from reforming and emitting a gamma ray.

Both the forming and decay of a neutron cannot produce energy as this violates the first law of thermodynamics so there must be something providing the energy to split the neutron.

If a neutron has both a negative and positive charge as it moves it represents two equal currents going in opposite directions. If this movement is through a magnetic field the two currents will be pushed in opposite directions, according to the right hand rule.

This will result in a shearing force on the molecule separating the electron and proton. It is the magnetic field that is providing the energy for the decomposition of the neutron.

The question arises why does the magnetic field react differently to an electron and a proton? The answer is that the magnetic field, like gravity, is a manifestation of one of the fundamental building blocks of the universe which I will call energy-t to distinguish it from the energy of moving objects.

Electric charge - Wikipedia

Energy-t is attracted to positive matter and repels or displaces negative matter. The strength of the attraction between energy-t and positive matter is greater than the strength of the attraction between negative matter and positive matter (probably by a factor of psi the universal constant) which allows it to displace the electron from a neutron creating a hydrogen atom.

Neutron emission from a nucleus is a splitting of the nucleus forming a hydrogen atom and another element just as alpha particle emission is a splitting of a helium atom from a nucleus forming two atoms of different elements.

Beta emission is not a splitting of an atom but the ejection of an electron from the nucleus. This happens because the nucleus is not held together by a binding nuclear force which pulls on the nuclear matter and overcomes the repelling force of the protons but by a compression force of energy-t being attracted to the protons in the nucleus.

As long as the nucleus has an outer shell of protons the electrons in it are shielded from the energy-t protecting them and preserving the structure. If electrons in the nucleus are exposed energy-t will either cause the nucleus to split into smaller more stable elements or eject an electron producing a stable nucleus.

It is this same attraction of energy-t to protons that causes the sun to burn. The sun originates as a neutron star composed only of matter and its associated electric force. Energy-t is attracted to the positive charge of the protons and mines the sun breaking off pieces that can then be processed further into smaller units where energy-t has replaced electrons close to the proton.

Hydrogen and helium are the ashes of the sun’s burning not the fuel. Other elements are also formed when pieces of matter create stable nucleuses preventing energy-t from the complete break down of the matter. All the elements on Earth originate in the sun, they do not originate as waste from the destruction of distant stars.

Animated sun the burning planet in cosmic scene. 3D ...

Protons, electrons, and neutron molecules are made of only matter and have an electric force or field associated with them. Every other object in the universe is composed of both matter and energy-t and has both an electric force/field and an energy-t force/field associated with it. The strength of these forces decreases with distance from the object producing weaker fields. An object encountering these fields will try to equalize with them either gaining energy-t or charge from the fields or losing energy-t or charge to the fields.

An object orbits another object because its kinetic energy is in equilibrium with the energy-t field of the object. If the orbiting object gains more kinetic energy it will lose energy-t to the field moving into a weaker part of the field equalizing with the field resulting in it having less kinetic energy than when it started.

If kinetic energy is removed from an orbiting object it will gain energy-t from the field and move into a stronger area of the field and end up having more kinetic energy than when it started.

Heat rises because the kinetic energy of a molecule is greater than the energy-t field the molecule is in. It can either transfer the excess energy-t to a molecule in a weaker field by

a collision with it and transferring the energy-t to it or by releasing the energy-t into the field radiating the heat. The amount of energy-t does not change it just moves to another object with the stronger positive electric attraction adding to its energy-t field.

Light or electromagnetic waves are disturbances in the electric and energy-t fields of objects and are transmitted from the fields of one object to the fields of other objects. The aether is the fields produced by the basic building blocks of the universe. When these disturbances enter a field with a different strength the speed which the waves propagate changes.

The speed of light is not constant and energy is not a different form of matter. E does not equal the mass of an object times the speed of light squared.

There are two components making up the universe: matter and energy-t, which produce two forces. The electric force is from matter. The force of energy-t is manifest in gravity, magnetism, and the strong force holding the nucleus in the atom. The weak nuclear force is from matter and the electric attraction between the protons and electrons in a nucleus.

In order to explain beta decay of atoms there needs to be a massive change in theoretical physics either by abandoning the first law of thermodynamics or abandoning the invented forces and particles created by theory. Reality does not change, beta decay occurs, theory needs to change in order to account for the contradiction between reality and theory.


PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. Telephone:  

Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.

Trackback from your site.

Comments (25)

  • Avatar

    James McGinn

    |

    Excellent post Herb.

    To what degree does nuclear physics represent unintelligible BS that everybody is just pretending to understand and agreeing to agree? I don’t know. I do know this, however, the capacity of humans to pretend to understand what is actually unintelligible nonsense is infinite.

    There is a notion going around that in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king. This is false. The reality is that in the land of the blind nobody admits they are blind.

    The world is full of pretenders that will tell you that you are wrong. None of them will be able to tell you how and why.

    James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
    http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Herb Rose

      |

      Hi Robert,
      The great illustrations are from PSI not me. When I am done writing I am tired of reading it and don’t read it after its published. The credit for all the illustrations goes to PSI.
      Herb

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Robert Beatty

        |

        Thanks Herb,
        You mean I have been wasting my time trying to figure out what relationship the exhibits have to the text?

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Herb Rose

          |

          Hi Robert,
          Yes I guess that’s true. I wouldn’t use some of the illustrations. The model of the atom I believe is wrong since atoms exist in magnetic fields the probability of finding an electron in a p or d shell is zero. Also, since I maintain that light is a disturbance in the electric snd magnetic the illustration showing a nucleus emitting a photon (particle) is not one I would select.
          Herb

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Robert Beatty

            |

            Herb and John,
            So the rule is go-figure if there are no Figures.

  • Avatar

    Sjaak Uitterdijk

    |

    Herb,
    Suppose a neutron is a proton around which an electron is orbiting at an extremely short distance.
    For more and detailed elaborations see: Atomic Nuclei Modelled Without Exotic Particles and Magic Forces: http://vixra.org/abs/1803.0036

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Herb Rose

      |

      Hi Sjaak,
      What you are describing is a hydrogen atom with a very small diameter. The electron would have to have a very great speed to counter the attractive force between the proton and the electron which would mean that the neutron would have a magnetic field stronger than that of a normal hydrogen atom. I don’t know of a magnetic field associated with a neutron.
      Herb

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Sjaak Uitterdijk

    |

    Herb,
    Indeed, the model of the hydrogen atom is like my model of the neutron.
    The fact that you “don’t know of a magnetic field associated with a neutron” doesn’t imply that such a field doesn’t exist!
    Citation from my article:”A comparable situation is the strength of a magnetar (“a type of neutron star with an extremely powerful magnetic field: 10^8 – 10^11 Tesla)””
    The magnetic field of such a neutron is shaped like the magnetic field of the earth, but concentrated within an extremely small surface and volume.
    Sjaak

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Herb Rose

      |

      Hi Sjaak,
      When I say that I know of a magnetic field associated with a neutron I mean that I have not heard of any evidence to support the conjecture. When a neutron passes through a magnetic field (north or south) its trajectory doesn’t change just as it doesn’t change when passing between charged plates.
      Your contention that the neutron’s magnetic field is concentrated in a small volume contradicts the observed characteristics of magnetic fields that expand, decreasing with distance.The size of magnetic fields is determined by the magnetic fields of other object around it, expanding to an equalization point. This assigning of new behavior to an established phenomena is comparable to the invention of the nuclear force which is a powerful force that is confined to the nucleus and is not evident in the rest of the atom.
      If you don’t accept the photon (particle nature of light) and the constant speed of light then you do not believe in fusion (E=mc^2). Since this belief is what gave rise to the concept of a neutron star you cannot use the magnetar as evidence to support your theory. If such a strong magnetic field is observed the assigning of a neutron star as its source is just an attempt by physicists to find something they believe in to avoid saying they don’t know why it exists. This need to find cause from established knowledge is what led Newton to connect mass with gravity instead of realizing it was from a new source, energy.
      Herb

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Sjaak Uitterdijk

        |

        Herb,
        I didn’t mean that remark as literally as you interpret it!
        Anyway: my imagination of such a neutron (proton around which an electron is orbiting at a very short distance) is that its magnetic field is not oriented in a fixed direction. Most likely the orientation of the orbit of the electron is varying randomly, so its magnetic field too.
        You mention: “constant speed of light”. Then my question is: with respect to what reference?
        I accept the photon, but certainly not as a particle, as I prove mathematically and physically in http://vixra.org/abs/1505.0225

        Reply

  • Avatar

    Robert Beatty

    |

    Sjaak,
    I note in your paper, page 9 “This model also shows that the energy of the photon is not generated by the loss of the kinetic energy of the electron, but the loss of the magnetic energy created by the electron due to its orbit. So two types of energy are converted: the magnetic energy into EM-radiation energy and kinetic energy into an energy not defined in the presented model of the photon. Given the information in it now can logically be assumed that this loss of kinetic energy will be converted into heat energy.”
    Why all to heat energy? The photon has considerable kinetic energy, (see radiation pressure). Is this not where the KE has gone? The EM seems to have an ephemeral mass component inherent with to KE, which I refer to as the bosmin effect.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Sjaak Uitterdijk

      |

      Robert,
      I was, in first instance, surprised that I really wrote the sentence: “…… and kinetic energy into an energy not defined in the presented model of the photon. Given the information in it now can logically be assumed that this loss of kinetic energy will be converted into heat energy.” You did not copy in this sentence the reference to which I refer. This is the article: “Why a Photon is not a Particle” http://vixra.org/pdf/1505.0225
      In this article I only state that the loss of kinetic energy is a loss of mechanical energy. That is why I wrote: “…..kinetic energy into an energy not defined in the presented model of the photon”.
      In the mean time I forgot the reason for writing, in the article describing an alternative model for an atomic nucleus: “…..it now can logically be assumed that this loss of kinetic energy will be converted into heat energy.” I have to think about this carefully.
      You continue with: “The photon has considerable kinetic energy, (see radiation pressure).” I don’t have the slightest idea about what to imagine speaking about radiation pressure, and neither does your statement: “The photon has considerable kinetic energy…” make sense to me. The photon has only radiation energy and this energy is delivered by the magnetic energy of the atom, during the generation/emission of the photon, as I motivate in “Why a Photon is not a Particle”.
      I therefor completely reject your statement: “The EM seems to have an ephemeral mass component inherent with to KE”
      And what might “bosmin effect” mean ???

      Reply

  • Avatar

    jerry krause

    |

    Hi Sjaak,

    The publisher (Louis Elzevir) of Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences wrote a preface to the reader’s of this book. Elsevir wrote (as translated by Crew and de Salvio): “For, according to the common saying, sight can teach more and with greater certainty in a single day than can precept even though repeated a thousand times: or, as another says, intuitive knowledge keeps pace with accurate definition.” Yes, I frequently have quoted this.

    “Kinetic Energy”, “heat energy”, “mechanical energy”, “radiation energy”, “magnetic energy” See the problem of not ‘accurately defining’ these words which are commonly used?

    I consider the universe to be everything that exists. Everything that exists is either matter (a body, large or small, which has a ‘rest’ mass [a mass not caused by the motion of the body] and which has a volume, large or small) or radiation, which does not have a rest mass and which does not occupy space but is never stationary (not moving).

    Science: A word (thing or action) that seems to defy definition. But my definition of Science is a human learning activity totally based upon observations (either upon what actually has been observed or what has been proposed by reason that could be observed if one tried. And reason often is only that which I think, or which others think.

    I realize that what I have just written makes no sense, but I have previously admitted that I am stupid. So nothing is new under the sun.

    Have a good day, Jerry

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Sjaak Uitterdijk

      |

      Jerry,
      Regarding the statement of Elzevir: indeed, thousand times zero is still zero. But “sight” can only teach more if it is worth more than zero!
      If you do have problems with understanding the meaning of all those kinds of energy, just ask Wikipedia and you get a perfect answer.
      You make one fundamental mistake in your remark: “….which has a ‘rest’ mass [a mass not caused by the motion of the body]” If you speak about the motion/velocity of a body, you need to define (I here repeat the word “define” purposely) the reference for the velocity of that body. Otherwise you don’t say anything worth saying.
      The problem with observations is the danger of a wrong interpretation of what has been observed.
      My question is: if you realize that what you have written does not make sense, what sense does it make to write that non-sense? Mind the “-” :-).
      But you sound like a nice guy.
      Sjaak

      Reply

    • Avatar

      Matt Holl

      |

      Hi Jerry.
      Thank you for all the references and sagacious quotes of others you include in your comments.
      I note the publisher (Louis Elzevir) of Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences wrote in the preface to the book the term “clear thinking minds”. For me that means, stay grounded, keep it simple.
      Your definition of science inspired me to attempt a definition.
      Science is the study of the evolving relationship between entities. And time?
      Time is the record of the evolving relationship between entities.
      I am not a scientist but I observed something once. If my above definitions fail simple scrutiny that is fine because by being wrong one grows and learns.
      Kind Regards
      Matt

      Reply

      • Avatar

        jerry krause

        |

        Hi Matt,

        Thank you for your kind words which encourage me. Anyone who observes as you have is a scientist and is applying the intellectual method we call science. Galileo recognized the power of this simple method and was willing to lie so he could better share what he had learned with future generations. And clearly Louis Elzevir immediately recognized what Galileo had learned. Not necessarily about the ideas of science but about Galileo’s method of learning–simple observation.

        Simple observation which allowed our prehistoric ancestors to survive in a very primitive world. And Galileo lied and wrote his book knowing: “We cannot teach people anything; we can only help them discover it within themselves.” Your definition of science and time is evidence that you have discovered something within yourself.

        Have a good day, Jerry

        Reply

  • Avatar

    jerry krause

    |

    Hi Sjaak,

    All you comments about me and what I wrote are probably correct.

    But you wrote: “The problem with observations is the danger of a wrong interpretation of what has been observed.”

    Do you really believe is it safer to drive a car with your eyes closed because you might misinterpret what you see?

    Have a good day, Jerry

    Reply

  • Avatar

    gallopingcamel

    |

    I hate to rain on your parade but your arguments don’t hold water……..I love mixed metaphors!
    Take a simple case such as Tritium (mass = 3.0160492 Daltons) undergoing beta emission that converts it into He3 (mass = 3.0160293 Daltons).

    The mass change is 0.0000199 Daltons or 18.54 keV. So where does that energy come from given that gravity is too weak and Coulomb attraction absorbs energy? You can call it “Binding Energy”, a combination of the strong and weak nuclear forces.

    What happens to the released energy? Part of it appears as the kinetic energy of the emerging photon which averages ~10 keV:
    https://www.gammaspectacular.com/phpBB3/download/file.php?id=86&sid=288a9d5f317ed4e51cf24ab90a2b606f
    That still leaves an average of ~ 8keV that appears as kinetic energy of the emerging electron.

    This explanation is somewhat simplistic because I ignored the effect of spin and the orbital energy change due to adding a second electron.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Herb Rose

      |

      HI,
      It is good to have rain that brings growth.
      My question now is on your measurement of the mass to Tritium. A dalton is the combined mass of an electron and a proton so what is providing the fractional mass you refer to? I would think that all atoms have a whole number mass while the mass of elements are an average of the different isotopes giving a fractional value. There are no atoms of an element that have the average mass.
      Herb

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Sjaak Uitterdijk

        |

        Robert,
        Electromagnetic momentum thus is equivalent to mv, leading to the conclusion that a photon contains mass. But what physical process might generate mass at the moment of emission?
        Mind you: I assume that you agree that a single atom emits a photon.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Robert Beatty

          |

          Sjaak,
          “what physical process might generate mass at the moment of emission?” It comes from the energy being released, but it is not certain how that occurs at the quantum level. My reading is that the ‘Higgs field’ plays a part.
          The mass is ephemeral. It only lasts for an intervening instance, but it appears to be an essential component during oscillation between the electrical and magnetic energy phases.

          Reply

  • Avatar

    jerry krause

    |

    Hi Matt,

    I expect you do not know that I submitted my first comment to PSI on the USA Memorial Day 2016. For this was the day I discovered PSI. http://principia-scientific.org/prevailing-theories-have-been-proven-wrong-before/#comments So this day is my University with the freedom that John O’Sullivan has given me to share my comments and essays with others than myself. For I had for decades written essays to myself, because no one else seemed interested in what I pondered. I did this to see what it was that I thought I understood.

    Thank you again for your kind words.

    Have a good day, Jerry

    Reply

Leave a comment

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Share via