paper number 7
Published by the Journal of New Energy, V. 4, N. 4 - 2000
Wladimir Guglinski
( 27 August 2007 )
ABSTRACT
A new model of the neutron is proposed.
The new model belongs to the author´s Quantum Ring Theory , published in a book form in August 2006 by the Bäuu Press. The book is composed by 24 papers.
There are many vital questions not answered by the current model of neutron in Nuclear Physics.
When a model is unable to answer all the vital questions satisfactorily, an unavoidable question arises: is such a theoretical model indeed the fundamental model used by the Nature?
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 the model of the neutron has not the same structure of the neutron used by the 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.
In later papers, 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.
1. WHY A NEW MODEL OF NEUTRON ?
Among the several vital questions concerning the helical trajectory of elementary particles, the author believes that the most fundamental question (among those unanswered yet) is the incompatibility between the helical trajectory and the statistical foundation of Quantum Mechanics. In this sense one can say that the helical trajectory is classical. Indeed, one could agree with the viewpoint of Lindsay & Margenau on the page 189 of their book[1]: ´´ No chance or uncertainty is connected with the predictions of, say, the laws of motion. They take for granted the perfect knowledge of a set of facts, such as the instantaneous positions and velocities of the bodies composing a system, and then state, with a precision far greater than is experimentally obtained, these positions and velocities at any future time´´.
However, this belief of Lindsay and Margenau is valid only when considering a classical particle, going by a classical rectilinear trajectory. If we take a non-classical model of fermion, as proposed by the author, we cannot have a prediction of its position, because although the particle has a statistical repose, it is not in absolute rest. If we consider in addition a helical trajectory, it is wrong to say ´´No chance or uncertainty is connected with the predictions of, say, the laws of motion´´.
Considering the Helmholtz postulate ´´all forces in nature are resolvable into central forces acting between all pairs of points masses´´, Lindsay & Margenau say at the page 188: ´´Simple and pleasing as this postulate may be, modern discoveries have shaken the belief in it´´. This statement means that the helical trajectory is not compatible with the foundations of Quantum Mechanics.
This is the reason why Heisenberg refused to seriously consider the helical trajectory. In spite of the helical trajectory being compatible with the existence of electron´s trajectory into the fog chamber, nevertheless, the idea of helical trajectory is not compatible with the other experiments from which are inferred the statistical behavior of the atom. Then probably Heisenberg thought: ´´ Rather to reject the experiment of the fog chamber, than all the experiments from which are born the foundations of Quantum Mechanics´´. Nevertheless, a scientist should not reject any valid experiments. If the theory is not able to explain all the experiments, then, of course, something is wrong with the theory model.
In the author´s paper Fundamental Requirements for the Proposal of a New Hydrogen Atom, it is shown that the spontaneous emission of the atom has dynamical causes. So, we already eliminated the incompatibility (into the electrosphere) between Helmholtz postulate and the emission of photons by the atom.
It is not difficult to show that the helical trajectory is able to explain the statistical behavior of electrons when they penetrate a potential barrier, a phenomenon explained by Gamow by the statistical viewpoint of QM.
As will be shown later, there are many problems with the Yukawa´s mesonic theory, and also with a 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.
2. VITAL QUESTIONS IN NUCLEAR PHYSICS
Consider the current model of the neutron, with quark structure (d,u,d). For the aggregation of the deuteron 1H2, the Yukawa model, where a meson jumps between two protons, needs to be considered. From the structure (d,u,d) we can get theoretically the magnetic moment of neutron. On the other hand, it is not possible to calculate the electric quadrupole moment of 1H2 starting from Yukawa model.
In addition, there are other fundamental problems. As is known, the aggregation between one proton and one neutron, performing the 1H2, is due to the strong nuclear force, responsible by an energy ´´Ea´´ of attraction with magnitude of 10MeV
By experiments we know that the binding energy is only E1H2 =2,2MeV<< Ea. Something is wrong with the conception of the strong force.
Other fundamental problems are explained as follows. In a distance 2F the Coulomb repulsion, Er, between two protons is:
Er = 9x109x(1,6x10-19)2 /10-15= 2,304x10-13joules = 1,44 MeV
Then two protons into a nucleus 2He2 are submitted to an energy of attraction of 10MeV
As we see, if only the strong nuclear force is considered, such a force is not able to explain the binding energy between the nucleons. Also, why are other nucleons not aggregated by the strong force, as for instance, two protons. It is indispensable to consider another additional cause of aggregation, working together with the strong nuclear force.
Another problem concerns the theoretical mass of the structure (d,u,d). 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. A scientist of the Theosophical Society wrote to the author in March-98: ´´ As regards neutron theory, present ideas suggest that the presence of Gluons as well as Quarks within the structure help to account for mass anomalies´´. Well, from such a pseudo-scientific way we can explain everything , because any time the theory disagrees with the experiments, we can adopt any new hypothesis we wish. Today there is a current fantastic theory according to which the delay (10 minutes ! ) of neutron decay is consequence of the existence of a strange gluon, and many believe in such a strange idea.
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 ΔE ~ mπ.c2 of energy is possible when ΔE.Δt ~ h , because according to Eisberg & Resnick[2], ´´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 Δt is very short.
Also, to ponder about the following: what is a short time? Visibly, the interval Δt 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 mπ , and the initial violation ΔEi of energy obeys the relation ΔEi.Δt ~ 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 Mπ>>mπ . Suppose that the time has a dilation in order that the interval Δt becomes ΔT. Well, the final violation of energy ΔEF must be submitted to the following transformation:
ΔEi.Δt ~ h becomes ΔEF.ΔT ~ h ,
where ΔEF << ΔEi , because ΔT >>Δt.
But ΔEF << ΔEi is not possible, because in reality we must have ΔEF >> ΔEi , as consequence of the fact that Mπ >> mπ and ΔEF ~ Mπ.c2 , while ΔEi ~ mπ.c2 .
Therefore a deuteron according to Yukawa´s model cannot have relativistic speed.
3. THE PROBLEM TO BE ANALYZED
Consider a model of the neutron with a structure (u,d,u↔e-), where the quark u is tied to an electron e- by an interaction that we will call ´´spin-fusion´´ (proposed in the Paper No. 5) 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 (in the Paper No. 8 we will calculate the speed v).
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.
2- Addition of spins
The problem is to analyze, between these restrictions, what is unacceptable.
A)- Zero-point energy
According to calculations considering the zero-point energy, it is impossible that the electron has permanence in the nuclei. But first of all are the foundations of Quantum Mechanics established by the participation of gravity ? That is, considering the nuclear models of Nuclear Physics, and even all the theoretical development of the theory, has gravity any participation in the working of these models?
As is known, the development of Quantum Mechanics does not consider gravity. But suppose that gravity can have a fundamental participation in the nuclear phenomena. After all, we know that there is a big contraction of the space around the proton, just as consequence of gravity, like happens around the Sun.
Suppose that the strong nuclear force can be merely a special kind of a strong 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 paper 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. Therefore, it is reasonable to try to discover if , rejecting the zero-point energy, it is possible to build a paradox-free Nuclear Theory by considering the electron as a part of the nuclear structure. This is the work developed by the author since 1993.
B) Addition of spins
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.
The first thing that must be answered is the following: have we a complete knowledge of the neutron´s structure, in order to be sure that a structure proton+electron can, or not, have a spin i=1/2? Is there enough knowledge of the interaction between the quark u and the electron ?
No, there is not. Perhaps it is possible that a hidden mechanism can be responsible so that a structure proton+electron may have a spin i=1/2. For example, suppose that the interaction (quark.uelectron) by a phenomenon called spin-fusion can be responsible for the spin 1/2 of the neutron. Then the following question must be addressed:
→ On one side, it is possible that a coherent solution able to eliminate the two restrictions against the structure (u,d, u↔e-) can be found
→ On the other side, if any solution for the violation of the energy conservation is not satisfactory, then is the Yukawa´s paradox acceptable ?
The following strategy is addopted:
1- Yukawa´s model and the quark model (d,u,d) are rejected.
2- Now verify if the structure (u,d,u↔e-) can solve the vital unanswered questions of Nuclear Physics.
NOTE: According to the present theory, we have:
→ The proton has a structure (u,d,u), and the anti-proton has a structure (u´,d´,u´).
→ The neutron has a structure (u,d,u↔e-), and the anti-neutron has a structure (u´,d´,u´↔e+)
4. QUARK STRUCTURE OF NEUTRON
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.
5 - YUKAWA´S MODEL AND THE QUARK STRUCTURE Ponder the partnership between Yukawa´s model and the proton´s model of quarks. Can we verify many undesirables failures in that partnership ? Lets see some of them. The proton is constituted by two quarks u+2/3 and one quark d-1//3, and the neutron (as interpreted from the results of experiments), has two quarks ´´d´´ and one quark ´´u´´ .
1- The neutron has mass 939,6 MeV/c2, and the mass of proton is 938,3 MeV/c2.
CONCLUSION 1:
Therefore, it seems that the quarks ´´d´´ and ´´u´´ have different masses, md > mu .
2- According to Particle Physics , the structures of the pions π- and πo are (d,u´) and (d,d´). The pion π- has mass 140MeV/c2 , and the πo has 135MeV/c2 . We know that in Nature a particle and its anti-particle have the same mass, and therefore mass(u) = mass(u´).
CONCLUSION 2:
Then, is it the relation of masses mu > md ?
Please compare the conclusions:
conclusion 2 : md < mu
Suppose we try to explain the difference of masses Δm = 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 πo should be more massive, as consequence of the gluons interference.
3- The pion πo has a time decay t = 10-15s .
The pion π- has a time decay t = 10-8s .
In the structure of the pion πo the negative quark d-1/3 has attraction with the positive anti-quark d´+1/3.
In the structure of the pion π- the negative quark d-1/3 has repulsion with the negative anti-quark u´-2/3.
Therefore, the pion π- cannot be more stable than the pion πo , and by consequence their time decay is in contrast with their structures in the model of the Particle Physics. Some try to explain it saying that the interaction in the structure (d,u´) is electromagnetic, and in the structure (d,d´) is by the weak force. But we cannot understand why, between d and u´, the interaction is electromagnetic, and between d and d´ the interaction is by the weak force.
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 Q(b)= +2,7x10-31m2 using a model 1H2 = (u,d,u)-(u,d, u↔e-), as we show in the paper 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 moment of 2He3 and the magnetic moment of 1H3.
Considering the structure n = (u,d, u↔e-), these magnetic moments are obtained theoretically in the paper No. 18, in the following pages of the book Quantum Ring Theory:
Page 220: magnetic moment of 2He3
Page 221: magnetic moment of 1H3
6. INTERPRETATION OF EXPERIMENTS
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 α ). When we make the same experiment with the neutron, the deviation β is like shown in the Fig. 2. From different deviations of β 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:
x = d-1/3 → interpretation of neutron´s structure = d-1/3 + d-1/3 + u+2/3
Suppose that an electron is tied to one of the two quarks u of the structure u+2/3 + u+2/3 + d-1/3 (the proton of Fig. 1), as shown in Fig. 3. 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 β in the Fig. 3 is the same deviation β 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-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.
Perhaps we can find the same sort of interaction (Q↔L ) in other particles, where Q is a quark, and L is a lepton. Let´s consider the following characteristic of the pions:
We can describe (1) as follows:
π- = (πo + e-) ) . . . . . . (4) ,
where all the pions π+ and π- have spin zero, because the spin 1/2 of electron (or positron) is vanished by the spin-fusion in the interaction with the quark d (or d´).
Suppose that the structure of πo 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 π+ 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: md < m < mD. This explains the difference of mass Δm = 5MeV/c2).
Looking at (5) we may understand the decay πo → γ + γ : the quark d and the quark d´ suffer annihilation, discharging energy in the shape of two photon gammas.
Sometimes πo → e+ + e- + photon, where the discharge of energy yields a pair electron-positron and a photon.
The decay of neutron is: (u,d,u↔e-) → (u,d,u) + e- + ν´ . And from (6) we realize that the decay of π- is similar to the decay of neutron: (d,d´↔e-) → μ- + ν´μ , because they both have an electron into their structure.
Now analyze the mesons K. The mass of positive and negative mesons K are :
mk+ = mk- = 494MeV/c)2 ,
and the mass of the neutralized mesons K are
mko = mko = 498 MeV/c)2.
Let us suppose the following structures:
K- = (u´,u↔e-) . . . . . . (7)
K+ = (u,u´↔e+) . . . . . . (8)
Looking at (7) and (8), we realize that it seems that the Nature does not like a structure (u,u´) alone. Look that (8) is similar to a proton with structure (u,d,u). Then it seems that (u,u) and (u,u´) always are tied to other particles, or quarks.
Then the structure of neutralized mesons K can be:
Ko = (e+↔u´,u↔e-) . . . . . . (9)
Ko = (e-↔u´,u↔ e+) . . . . . . (10)
and we realize that (10) is similar to a neutron with structure (u,d, u↔e-).
The explanation for the difference of masses Δm=4 MeV/c)2 is similar to that described for the mesons π.
Looking at (9), we see that the positron e+ is tied to a negative quark u´, while in (10) the electron e-) is also tied to a negative quark u´. Evidently, we must expect that the time decay of Ko in (10) must be very shorter. Indeed, the experiments show that Ko has a time decay t = 8,6x10-11s , while Ko has t = 5,2x10-8s. Unlike looking at (7) and (8) we have to expect the same time decay for K- and K+. Indeed, the experiments show that they both have t = 1,2x10-8s.
The different times of decay t = 8,6x10-11s of Ko , and t = 5,2x10-8s of Ko , 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[2], 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 for a process interpreted as a ´´temporal reversion´´, because in 0,1% of the experiments the decays is K→ π + π. This means that, according to their interpretation, sometimes Nature induces a 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.
What, between the two alternatives, is the more adequate for the development of a coherent theory?
Important is the fact that the pion πo 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 to the quarks d and d´). Sometimes the πo suffers electromagnetic decay with emission of the pair electron-positron + photon. But always a pair is emitted (never one unique lepton alone, as it is the feature of the β-decay, as happens in the β-decay of a neutron).
There are interesting reactions that we can analyze. For example, the collision of two protons:
The other reaction is π+ + 1H2 → p + p , described by: (d´,d↔e+) + (u,d,u).(u,d,u↔e-) → (u,d,u) + (u,d,u) , where the positron and the electron suffer annihilation, leaving only two protons.
Another reaction is π- + 1H2 → n + n ,
described by: (d,d´↔e-) + (u,d,u).(u,d,u↔e-) → (u,d,u↔e-) + (u,d,u↔e-) , where the proton of 1H2 performs a neutron by the absorption of the electron of the π-, while d has annihilation with d´.
As the pion πo with structure (d,d´) has a mass 135 MeV/c2 , and Ko with structure (e+↔u´,u↔e-) has mass 498 MeV/c2, we can expect that their combination can yield a meson with mass 498+135=633MeV/c2, which structure will be (dd´,uu´), with load zero. We also can expect other meson by the combination of two mesons Ko, with structure (uu´,uu´), and mass 498x2= 996 MeV/c2. In 1961 Gell-Mann proposed their existence, taking in consideration arguments based on the Strangeness property . Later they were discovered by experiments, with the following masses:
ηo with mass 550 MeV/c2, and η´ with mass 960 MeV/c2. Their decays are:
ηo → photon+photon,
and η´ → ηo+π+π, two results that we can understand:
(dd´,uu´) → (dd´) + (uu´) ,
where d and d´ suffer annihilation, while the same happens with u and u´, discharging energy in the form of two photons.
(uu´,uu´) → (dd´,uu´) + (d,d´) + (d,d´)
NOTE: The theory proposed here suggests that the mass of the quarks u and d are different: mu >> md .
Considering that (u,u´) has a mass ~ 500 MeV/c2 , while from the mass of the pion πo we infer that one quark d should have a mass ~140/2= 70MeV/c2, one could think that the mass of proton should be ~ 570 MeV/c2. Nevertheless, such arithmetic is not correct, because the mass of a combination of two quarks depends on the radius of their orbit (one quark turns about the other). Therefore, although the mass of a quark u is the same mass of a quark u´ , nevertheless, the mass due to the combination (u,u´) is smaller than the mass of a combination (u,u) into the structure (u,d,u), because the orbit of (u,u´) has a radius shorter than in the orbit of (u,u) in the structure (u,d,u). As we will propose in a later paper, the mass of a nucleon depends not only on the mass of the quarks; the mass also depends on the orbit of these quarks (in the proton the orbit has a big radius r = 10-15m, which is the proton´s radius: the repulsion between the two quarks u makes the radius big; unlike, the attraction between two quarks u and u´ makes the radius of a meson small); a flux of gravitons, crossing the cross-section of the orbit with radius r = 10-15m, yields the mass of the proton. Such a mechanism can explain why (when two nucleons are packed together) the loss of mass is small when the binding energy is small, and why the loss of mass is big when the binding energy is big.
7. THE STRANGENESS ´´S´´
When a pion π- collides with a proton into a chamber of hydrogen bubbles, the interaction is described by:
Nevertheless, the Λo has a time decay 10-10s , and the mesons K have a decay between 10-8s and 10-10s, which is characteristic of a decay by the weak force.
By this reason Gell-Mann and Nishijima proposed in 1953 the property Strangeness S. Their postulate proposes that the Strangeness S is kept in the strong interaction.
Let us analyze the reaction (11). The particle Λo has two decays:
and
Λo → n + πo . . . . . . (13)
Before considering the conclusion that we can infer from (14), (9), and (10), let us pose other question. 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 Λo and K o . 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.
There is an interesting fact that we can note. In their book[2], Eisberg & Resnick say:
´´So, the conservation of the parity can be violated in the K decay like it is violated in the β-decay, because in the both decays there is participation of the weak force, in which there is not conservation of the parity´´.
As we realize, because the physicists did not discover that the addition of spins is violated, they transferred the problem for the parity.
Instead of: ´´the addition of spins is violated in the β-decay´´, they say: ´´the parity is not kept in the β-deca´´.
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 for 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:
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.
8. CONCLUSIONS
1. Reading the present paper, a particle physicist can say: ´´I do not accept the proposals of the author, because they are not according to the proposals of Particle Physics´´.
But let us compare the Nuclear Physics, with the Particle Physics:
a) There are a lot of experimental tracks which we can infer from Nuclear Physics
b) In contrast, we cannot get many tracks from Particle Physics.
Then suppose that there is a conflict of concepts between the two theories. What does we have to do?
→Do we trust in the interpretations of Nuclear Physics, which is able to supply us with many experimental tracks?
→Or do we trust in the interpretations of the Particle Physics, a field where we have not enough experimental tracks ?
2. When we deal with the nucleus, we have a lot of experimental tracks. These big quantity of tracks can supply us favorable conditions for the study of the nucleus structure, however, the physicists did not achieve success in their attempt trying to establish a perfect, coherent, and unique model. Alternatively, the tracks of the High Energy Physics are not so evident. Therefore, if the physicists did not achieve success in solving the obvious questions (the problems of Nuclear Physics), by what reason can we thrust in their interpretations about the not so obvious questions (the problems of Particle Physics) ?
3. When the physicists succeed in establishing the basis of a paradox-free Nuclear Theory , starting from an unique nuclear model (without incoherences), they will be ready to begin to look for new foundations for Particle Physics.
4. It is easier to develop a theory by the creation of many concepts like the Strangeness S, the Isospin T, and others. These concepts are necessary for development of technology, because they describe quantitatively the results of experiments. But we cannot confuse development of technology with the establishment of the correct foundations of Physics. In general the scientist likes to say that Quantum Physics is the most successful theory of the time, because one has obtained the higher accuracy in the description of the phenomena. But we must put a fundamental question: Are the foundations of Quantum Physics compatibles with the fundamental essence of the phenomena ?
Suppose that Nature yields the phenomena according to Helmholtz postulate. Then it is impossible to develop a satisfactory theory starting from the foundations of Quantum Physics.
Unfortunately we don´t know if Nature works according to Helmholtz postulate. But at least we have a fundamental track: the electron´s trajectory into the fog chamber is compatible only with Helmholtz postulate, because only the helical trajectory is compatible with the experiment of the fog chamber. At least this track suggests that the foundations of Quantum Mechanics cannot be correct. If we analyze a theory not from its technological success, but from the viewpoint of scientists interested to discover the truth, sure that we must be more precise than the scientists have been up to now, when they appreciate the successes of Quantum Mechanics. Then let us establish four fundamental premises that a theory must satisfy.
A satisfactory theory:
1- Must be coherent
2- Must work with models according to the Logic
3- Must be a free-paradox theory
4- And must be compatible with the whole array of experiments (and not only with those experiments which are suitable to be described only by observable quantities, like proposed by Heisenberg). The scientific method requires that a theory must describe all the experiments.
We are not saying that it will be a perfect theory. The four premises are required for a theory to at least be satisfactory.
A theory that satisfies the four items above is satisfactory. Quantum Mechanics does not satisfy the premises, and, therefore, it is not satisfactory.
We must verify if we can find the foundations of a theory according to Helmholtz postulate, and satisfying the four fundamental premises above.
References:
1- R. B. Lindsay, H. Margenau, Foundations of Physics, Ox Bow Press, 1981
2- Eisberg R. and Resnick R., Quantum Physics of Atoms, Molecules, Solids, Nuclei and Particles, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. - 1974.