Lasted edited by Andrew Munsey, updated on June 15, 2016 at 1:38 am.
Several experimental evidences are suggesting that there is something very wrong with the Standard Model.
Nevertheless, the Standard Model has been successful in predicting several particles, later confirmed by experiments.
So, some experimental evidences suggest that the Standard Model is wrong, and other experimental evidences suggest that it is correct.
How to explain such paradox ?
On another hand, there are many vital questions not answered by the current model of neutron in Nuclear Physics.
And when a model is unable to answer all the vital questions satisfactorily, many unavoidable questions arise, as follows:
The neutron is not a fundamental particle, because it suffers decay. But in all the nuclei the neutron is a fundamental brick of their structure. Therefore, if a theoretical model of the neutron has not the same structure of the neutron existing in Nature, obviously that such a fact shall have fundamental repercussions in the development of Nuclear Physics. It is obvious that we cannot get a satisfactory model of the nucleus having as a point of departure a wrong model of the neutron.
Here we propose a new model of the neutron. In later chapters, a new nuclear model will be proposed. These two models will be a new point of departure for the establishment of new foundations for a New Nuclear Theory.
There are many problems with the Yukawa’s mesonic theory, and also with the model of neutron in which the structure is (d,u,d), where d is the quark down, and u is the quark up.
These fundamental questions arise:
1- Suppose that the model of the neutron proposed by the Nuclear Physics is not correct
2- Is it possible, starting from a wrong model of the neutron, to find a correct model of nucleus?
3- Probably it is not possible. Then, if the model of the neutron is wrong , obviously the nuclear models proposed by Nuclear Theory are wrongs.
4- Then, is it possible to get a correct foundation for the Nuclear Theory starting from incorrect nuclear models, incompatible between themselves, as proposed by the current Nuclear Physics?
These concepts will be discussed.
There is not Coulombic repulsion between two neutrons.
But two neutrons interact through the strong force, when they approach to a distance in order of 10-15m.
Well, as there is not repulsion, but they have attraction by the strong force, this means that two neutrons would have to combine, by forming a dineutron. And they would never appart away anymore.
However dineutrons do not exist in Nature.
Heisenberg proposed the concept of isospin in order to solve the paradox.
However, the isospin is a pure abstract mathematical concept.
While two neutrons forming a dineutron would have to be tied by a FORCE of attraction.
So, only a FORCE of repulsion could be able to oppose to the force of attraction, and to separate the two neutrons.
An abstract concept like the isospin cannot create a force of repulsion, since it is only an abstract concept. Heisenberg did not discover a FORCE of repulsion capable to win the FORCE of attraction. He proposed a solution without a physical cause, a solution disagree to the causality principle.
Heisenberg’s solution describes WHAT happens, but it does not describe WHY it happens.
Another problem concerns the theoretical mass of the quark structure (d,u,d) of the neutron. Indeed, a proton (u,d,u) must have the same mass as a neutron (d,u,d), but the experiments show that the neutron is more massive. When a theory does not fit the experimental results, the physicists often try to find other explanations, and often never accept that the problem is situated in the wrong foundations of this model of the neutron.
It is also necessary to mention the breakdown of the principle of conservation of energy. Quantum Mechanics explains the violation of energy conservation in Yukawa’s model by Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, according to which a violation by a quantity ?E ~ m?.c2 of energy is possible when ?E.?t ~ h , as said by Eisberg & Resnick, in their book Quantum Physics: “the violation cannot be detected by the experiments”.
First of all, it is very strange to believe that a fundamental principle can be infringed on only because one cannot detect it by experiments, only because ?t is very short.
Also, to ponder about the following: what is a short time?
Visibly, the interval ?t is very short for the human’s mind, but not for the Nature.
Consider next the Yukawa paradox:
Consider a deuteron where each proton has a mass mp and the meson has a mass m? , and the initial violation ?Ei of energy obeys the relation ?Ei.?t ~ h .
Suppose that we supply a relativistic speed to the deuteron , in order that it gets a speed v = 0,999c. In this case, the mass of each proton will be Mp>>mp , while the mass of meson will be M? >>m?.
Suppose that the time has a dilation in order that the interval ?t becomes ?T. Well, the final violation of energy ?EF must be submitted to the following transformation:
?Ei. ?t ~ h
?EF. ?T ~ h ,
where ?EF > ?t.
But ?EF > ?Ei ,
as consequence of the fact that M? >> m? and ?EF ~ Mp.c2 , while ?Ei ~ m?.c2.
Therefore a deuteron according to Yukawa’s model cannot have relativistic speed.
Yes, it is possible, although there are many theoretical restrictions against n=p+e that must be eliminated. And we will see how they are eliminated along two chapters concerning the neutron.
Consider a model of the neutron with a structure:
where the quark u is tied to an electron e- by an interaction that we will call “spin-fusion” , a phenomenon that we will consider in the next script ANOMALOUS MASS OF THE NEUTRON.
The spin-fusion is represented by the symbol “«” tying a quark to a lepton. Then, fundamentally, this new model of the neutron is formed by a structure proton+electron, where the electron is connected to one of the quarks u of the proton, and the conjunct (u« e-) turns about the center of the proton with a relativistic speed v (calculated in the paper on the new nuclear model).
Here we are analyzing the two fundamental restrictions against this new model of the neutron, compared with the most fundamental restriction against Yukawa’s model (there are many fundamental restrictions against Yukawa’s model, but consider that the most fundamental is the violation of energy conservation).
Then we compare the breakdowns of each of the two models.
1. Zero-point energy
2. Addition of spins (Fermi-Dirac statistics)
FUNDAMENTAL BREAKDOWN OF YUKAWA’S MODEL:
• Violation of the energy conservation
The problem is to analyze, between these restrictions, what is unacceptable.
1- Zero-point energy
According to calculations considering the zero-point energy, it is impossible that the electron has permanence in the nuclei.
But let’s analyse such restriction.
As is known, the development of Quantum Mechanics does not consider gravity. But suppose that a dynamic gravity can have a fundamental participation in the nuclear phenomena.
OBS: dynamic gravity grows with the relative speed of two particles that interact through the dynamic gravity. The biggest is the relative speed between the two particles, stronger is the dynamic gravity.
Suppose that the strong nuclear force can be merely a special kind of a strong dynamic gravity interaction.
One immediately will say: “If the strong force should have a gravitational origin, then the electron and the leptons would have interaction by the strong force, but they have not ”.
But such an argument is based on a knowledge of a classical model of the fermion. The author shows in a later chapter that considering the non-classical field Sn(e), the electron and the leptons have no interaction by the strong force, although its origin can be gravitational. As shown, there are good reasons to believe the actuation of gravity on the nuclei can’t be dismissed.
However the models of Quantum Physics do not consider the gravity. Then, of course, one cannot reject the possibility of electron’s permanence in the nuclei considering only the zero-point energy.
One cannot consider the zero-point as a fundamental and definitive argument, because the theorists did not consider up to now the influence of the repulsive gravity into the structure of nucleons like the neutron.
An electron could not be keept into the structure of a neutron because that would require a new Planck constant, in order to perform a force 1000 times stronger than the strong force, and by this way capable to tie the electron within the neutron.
But as we will show in the next chapter, it is reasonable to suppose that Planck’s constant is changed into the nucleons by the influence of the repulsive gravity, an hypothesis that is reinforced by the fact that the strong force actuates within the electrosphere of the atoms, as shown in the new zitterbewegung hydrogen atom.
So, the zero-point energy is not a definitive restriction against the model n=p+e.
2- Addition of spins (Fermi-Dirac statistics)
A neutron having a structure proton+electron must have a nuclear spin i= 1/2+1/2 = 1. But we know by experiments that neutron’s spin is i= 1/2.
No, there is not.
Quantum Ring Theory proposes that spin-fusion occurs by the following way:
1- The spin of the electron is due to its zitterbewegung
2- The radius of the electron’s radius decreases when its speed increases
3- In velocities near to the speed of light, the radius of the helical trajectory tends to zero, which means that the electron tends to lose its spin.
4- As the electron turns about the proton with relativistic speed into the structure of the neutron, as we mentioned before, then into the neutron the electron loses its spin, and it becomes a boson. That’s why the neutron has a spin ½, since it is formed by a fermion (the proton) and a boson (an electron that lost its spin due to its relativistic speed).
The Fermi-Dirac statistics is the stronger argument against the acceptation of the model n=p+e.
Then we realize that the stronger theoretical restriction against n=p+e has been eliminated.
The author’s strategy is:
1- Up to now, the Nuclear Theory did not exhibit a satisfactory model for the nucleus, absent of misfires and incoherences. Therefore, the necessary first important step is to find correct foundations for the Nuclear Theory, and after that, the physicists will be able to apply these foundations for the development of Particle Physics.
2- The nucleus ( if we compare it with the proton) is very big. By consequence, we have much more accuracy in the results of experiments when we deal with the nucleus. We also can get a lot of good tracks, inferred from the nuclei properties: electric quadrupole moment nuclear spins not conservation of the parity in the beta-decay magnetic moments magic numbers bindings energies alpha , beta and gamma decays the nuclear reactions experiments with proton-proton and proton-neutron scattering and many other nuclear properties which are analyzed in later papers (for example, it is shown an unknown property of the nuclei with Z=N=pair : the inertia moment with regard to the z-axis is different from the inertia moment with regard to any axis of the xy-plane). Therefore, with this big quantity of tracks we have a chance to establish a correct model of the nucleus, if one analyzes these tracks with good sense, (without preconceptions and taking care about the interpretations of the experiments results), and at the same time one can find and establish the fundamental nuclear mechanisms used by Nature, which are responsible for nuclei behavior.
3- From the possession of the fundamental mechanisms that Nature uses in nuclei, we can try to apply them to the proton, with the objective of verifying if they can bring satisfactory explanations for the quark structure behavior, or if it is necessary to establish new fundamental mechanisms ( and maybe also new fundamental forces for the quarks interactions).
So, it is the author’s belief that the main objective is the analysis of the present new model of neutron for the following situation:
• How fundamental (or not) are the restrictions against the model (u,d,u«e-) ?
• The evidence suggests that this model is correct.
• How fundamental are the restrictions against Yukawa’s model and against the structure (d,u,d) of Particle Physics ?
Nevertheless, the author will analyze herein many questions concerning to the quark structure by a new starting point: the violation of the addition of spins by the spin-fusion. The author wishes to show that, if we build a New Nuclear Theory starting from a new model of the neutron and a new unique model of nucleus, then of course, one can find new foundations which can be applied to Particle Physics.
Ponder the partnership between Yukawa’s model and the proton’s model of quarks.
Lets see some of them.
The proton is constituted by the quarks:
two u+2/3 + one d-1//3
and the neutron (as interpreted from the results of experiments), has:
two “d” + one “u”
1- The neutron has mass 939,6 MeV/c2, and the mass of proton is 938,3 MeV/c2.
Have the quarks “d” and “u” different masses
2- According to Particle Physics , the structures and masses of the pions ?- and ?O are:
?- = (d,u’) , mass = 140MeV/c2
?O = (d,d’) , mass = 135MeV/c2
We know that in Nature a particle and its anti-particle have the same mass, and therefore
mass(u) = mass(u’)
Then, is it the relation of masses mu > md ?
Please compare the conclusions:
conclusion 1 : md > mu
conclusion 2 : md < mu
Suppose we try to explain the difference of masses
?m = 140MeV/c2 -135MeV/c2
as consequence of gluons interference.
However, the neutron has no load, and it is more massive.
Then one must expect that the meson ?o should be more massive, as consequence of the gluons interference, since it has no load too.
3- The pion ?o has a time decay
t = 10-15s .
The pion ?- has a time decay
t = 10-8s .
Therefore, the pion ?- cannot be more stable than the pion ?O, and by consequence their time decay is in contrast with their structures in the model of the Particle Physics.
Theorists try to explain by the partnership of two hypothesis:
4- The experiments detected that the deuteron 1H2 has an electric quadrupole moment Q(b)= +2,7x10-31m2. If we try to get it by Yukawa’s model, it is impossible. Even if we consider a structure (u,d,u)-(d,u,d) without a meson jumping between the proton and the neutron, it is impossible to get theoretically the quadrupole moment. But we obtain theoretically 2,7x10-31m2 by using a model 1H2 = (u,d,u)-(u,d,u«e-), as we show in the script Anomalous Mass of the Neutron.
5- From Yukawa’s model and from the neutron (d,u,d) it is impossible to calculate theoretically the magnetic moments of 2He3 and 1H3. These magnetic moments are obtained theoretically in a later chapter considering the structure n = (u,d,u«e-).
Fig. 1 shows the trajectory of an electron with energy ~20GeV when it crosses the body of a proton.
The electron with load q = -1 passes near to the quark u , and the trajectory suffers a deviation (angle ?). When we make the same experiment with the neutron, the deviation ? is like shown in the Fig. 2.
From different deviations of ? in many situations of the electron trajectory in many experiments, the physicists arrived at the following conclusion about the structure (x+d-1/3+u+2/3) of the neutron in the Fig. 2:
Suppose that an electron is tied to one of the two quarks u of the structure:
The electron and the quark u+2/3 travel together around the AB-axis. They run together because their fields are interlaced, as shown in the detail of the Fig. 3. Besides, there is attraction between their loads +2/3 and -1.
The deviation ? in the Fig. 3 is the same deviation ? in the Fig. 2, because in the Fig. 2 the quark x (interpreted as d-1/3 by the physicists), has load -1/3 .
The structure (u«e-) works as if it should be a quark d u-1/3, then it is possible that the solution of the problem can be x = (u«e-). So, we must verify if the solution x = (u«e-) can give a free-paradox model of the neutron.
Let’s consider the following characteristic of the pions:
We can describe (1) as follows:
The expression (2) suggests that the pions ?- and ?+ are constituted by a pion ?o with an electron (or positron) in orbit around the pion ?o, which spin is zero:
Suppose that the structure of pO is:
Then the structures of the other pions are:
Suppose that a free quark d (if it should exist in the Nature) has a mass mD .
Into the structure (d,d’) each one of the two quarks has a mass m < mD , because there is a loss of mass due to the their binding energy in the structure of (5):
But considering the structure at the left side of (6):
the interaction between (d’) and (d«e+) of the pion p+ has a smaller binding energy, and, therefore, the loss of mass is smaller than in the interaction (d,d’) of (5):
the reason why each one of the quarks d in the structures of (6):
have a mass m as follows:
This explains the difference of mass Dm = 5MeV/c2
Looking at (5):
we may understand the decay
the quark d and the quark d’ suffer annihilation, discharging energy in the shape of two photon gammas.
where the discharge of energy yields a pair electron-positron and a photon.
The decay of neutron is:
And from (6):
we realize that the decay of p- is similar to the decay of neutron:
because they both have an electron into their structure.
Analyze the strange behavior of the mesons K, that Standard Model is unable to explain.
The mass of positive and negative mesons K are:
Let us suppose the following structures:
Looking at (7) and (8), we realize that it seems that the Nature does not like a structure (u,u’) alone.
Look that (8):
The explanation for the difference of masses ?m = 4 MeV/c2 is similar to that described for the mesons ?.
Of course not.
But look what happened.
The different times of decay t = 8,6x10-11s of K0 , and t = 5,2x10-8s of K0 , have another consequence:
the particles K- and K+ have an uncommon distribution of time-decay, situated between an equitable mixture of two exponential:
one with life-average about 10-8s, and the other about 10-10s .
According to Eisberg and Resnick in their book Quantum Physics, the existence of two life-average has an interesting origin: the participation of KO and KO in the process of decay of K- and K+.
Here there is an important fact to be analyzed.
In 1964, Christenson and collaborators discovered that the system (KO , KO ) sometimes is responsible by a process interpreted as a “temporal reversion”, because in 0,1% of the experiments the decays is K -> ?+?. This means that, according to their interpretation, sometimes Nature induces an absurd phenomenon where the flux of time goes in contrary direction.
Let us think about this. First, in 1935, Yukawa proposed that the energy conservation law could be infringed upon. That was a very grave conclusion, and the physicists would certainly fell that something was wrong with his theory. Later, in 1964, Christenson discovered that the flux of time can suffer a reversion. That was another absurd conclusion. Then the physicists would necessarily arrive at the following verdict: something fundamentally wrong happens with the current Nuclear Theory.
Finally we must place the situation:
1- Suppose that it is possible to build a coherent theory starting from the violation of the law of addition of spins (a violation that we can explain with coherent mechanisms, as we will see in a later paper).
2- Unlike, keeping the law of addition of spins, we build an incoherent theory, where we are obliged to adopt the violation of the energy conservation and to accept the temporal reversion as a phenomenon of Nature.
The onlooker can respond himself.
Important is the fact that the pion ?O never suffers beta-decay (its decay always is electromagnetic, with time decay in order of 10-15s because its structure (d,d’) has not a lepton tied by spin-fusion to the quarks d and d’).
Sometimes the ?O = (d,d’) suffers electromagnetic decay with emission of the pair electron-positron+photon.
But always a pair is emitted in the ?o decay (never one unique lepton alone, as it’s the feature of the beta-decay, as happens in the beta-decay of a neutron).
For example, the collision of two protons:
When a pion ?- collides with a proton into a chamber of hydrogen bubbles, the interaction is described by:
As we know, the proton and the neutron have interaction by the strong force. Then it would be expected that a neutron should have a decay of the order of 10-23s, but we know that the neutron’s decay is on the order of 10 minutes.
From the present theory, a model of neutron (u,d,u«e-), with the presence of the electron in its structure, is the answer for the question:
why has not the neutron’s time decay a characteristic of a decay by the strong force ?
We can say the same about the decay of ?0 and K0 .
It is the presence of the electron and the positron in their structures that yields to their time decay a characteristic of the weak interaction.
Obviously the violation of a fundamental law is always something very disagreable in any theory.
So, if a new theory is able to eliminate the violation of the law, sure that the new theory must be taken seriously in consideration.
Now we understand what happens: because a lepton is hidden into the structure of the neutron and in the structure of the mesons and other particles, after the decay the lepton is responsible by a fantasy result which cannot be understood by the current theories.
It is important to note that the total addition of spins is not violated.
Indeed, consider the neutron’s decay:
At the left side of (15) we have a spin 1/2, and at the right side the spin is 1/2 -1/2 + 1/2 = 1/2 , because the anti-neutrine n’ is just emitted with spin 1/2 when the spin-fusion is dissolved during the decay, in order to keep the total angular moment before and after the decay.
And when a free electron with helical trajectory (it has spin 1/2) is captured by a proton, and they form a neutron, look what happens:
1- the electron loses its helical trajectory, becoming a boson with spin zero.
2- in such process, a neutrino with spin 1/2 is emitted while the electron loses its spin 1/2 due to its helical trajectory (lost when it is captured by the proton)
3- in order that there is a conservation of the total angular momentum.
It would be very difficult to the physicists to believe in the violation of the spin addition, when they started to develop the Nuclear Theory. That’s why it was never proposed such a hypothesis.
And here we mention a discussion in a forum, where the nuclear chemist Mytch Garcia supposed to have shown an unsourmountable theoretical argument against the possibility of cold fusion ocurrence.
The discussion is available in the link:
In a recent article in C&EN, Steve Ritter writes about a cold fusion presentation at the recent ACS Chicago meeting. The article can potentially be read as lumping the loony-toony crack-pot conspiracy theorists cold fusion with the very real and valid field of low-energy nuclear reactions dealing with cold fusion. So, lets talk about the differences...
After talking about such differences, Mytch said:
In conclusion, giving coverage to this fringe science only helps perpetuate the false belief that there exists any viability in cold fusion. The C&EN readership would be well served if more coverage of valid nuclear chemistry research was reported too. Hint-hint
Link to article:
Steve Krivit, the editor of New Energy Times, tried to convince Mitch that he was wrong, by replying the following:
There are a few reasons why New Energy Times doesn't call this subject "cold fusion" anymore, either with, or without the Looney-Toons attribution.
1. We accept that the hypothesis of fusion is speculative and that this assertion is unproved.
2. There are numerous examples of reactions observed in the field that clearly cannot be caused by fusion.
3. There is a theory (published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal) by Widom and Larsen, that claims to be able to explain most of the "cold fusion" phenomena without requiring one to invoke magic spells.
Take a look at
Let me know what you think.
Steve Krivit , Editor, New Energy Times
Mytch replied to Krivit, showing that the paper mentioned by him was unsatisfactory.
sbkrivit: The general gist I get from the above link is that some unbeknown phenomena is creating thermal neutrons, and it is those thermal neutrons that are leading to observed heat increases.
I doubt this is happening, but I can knock out the claim that this is from electron capture on deuterium(2H) or that this is from, protons(1H).
I made a nice little calculator for these types of things. Link:
A negative Q-value means that this will not happen spontaneously. This makes sense, since neutrons are heavier (contain more mass) than protons. The question then is, where will this additional mass come from? From the references cited in your post, I see no explanation accounting for the excess mass of the neutron. In the end, the mass-energy or the products need to equal the mass-energy of the reactants No one can escape the conservation of mass-energy.
The author of Quantum Ring Theory replied to Mytch, and showed him that his argument against the possibility of cold fusion occurence is debunked if we consider the electron’s zitterbewegung hypothesis.
His reply to Mytch is the following:
''I have not heard of Zitterbewegung energy before, and have been studying up on it before giving a formal response.
Sorry for the delay.''
He did not.
According to the Standard Model, the quark d has mass 5-15MeV, and the quark u has mass 2-8MeV.
The negative and positive pions have structure (d,u')and (d',u) respectivelly,and they both have mass 140MeV.
The neutralized pions have structure (d,d') and (u,u'), and so according to the Standard Model there would have to exist two neutralized pions with different masses, since (d,d') has greater mass than (u,u').
But experiments show that neutralized pions have mass 135MeV.
How does explain it ?
The theorists claim that there is a superposition of the two neutralized pions, so that the superposition (d,d')+ (u,u') has mass 135MeV.
However the meson Rho has the same structure the pions:
According to the Standard Model:
Rho+ and Rho- have mass 770MeV, and their structures are (d,u') and (d',u).
But the structures of the neutralized RhoO are (d,d') and (u,u'), and it would be expected the superposition between them, in order that the resultant mass of the superposition would have to be lesser than 770MeV.
However the RhoO has mass 770MeV, the same mass of the structures (d,u') and (d',u).
And so the question: why there is no superposition in the case of the meson RhoO ?
It seems there is need to adopt a new postulate in the Standard Model:
STRANGENESS II: The meson RhoO does not obey to the rule of superposition of the Standard Model