return to homepage
TO BUILD A NUCLEUS
a Strong Force
published July 2009
physics has sold us a quantum interaction called the strong
force, which is supposed to be one of the four fundamental forces
of nature. This interaction has been forced down our throats
despite the known fact that there is no evidence for it. The
strong force is just a theory. It is a theoretical force proposed
to counteract E/M repulsion in the nucleus. Problem is, quantum
physicists have never proved that there is an E/M repulsion in
the nucleus. They have simply assumed that there is. Because the
E/M field is known to be ubiquitous at the macro-level, quantum
physicists have assumed from the very beginning that it must be
present in the nucleus. If it is present, it must be overcome, to
explain the nearness of nucleons to one another.
will show that the E/M field is not present within the nucleus in
the way we have been told. This means that the strong force is
one more theoretical and mathematical ghost.
this, I will actually show you how to build a nucleus without the
strong force. I will diagram several nuclei, showing that it is
quite easy to construct a model of protons and neutrons in which
all E/M emission is external.
To achieve this requires
only a few simple postulates. The first postulate is that the E/M
field is caused by an emission field. Protons must be emitting
something in order to create the repulsion. The standard model
already accepts this postulate, in a mutated and illogical form.
The standard model proposes that charged particles emit virtual
or messenger photons which are capable of telling other quanta to
move away or move closer. Since this proposition is
non-mechanical, non-physical, and magical, and since my papers
are concerned with physics and mechanics, I must bring this
proposition back in line with logic and physics. To do that, I
only have to get rid of the “messenger” or “virtual”
part of the theory. I propose that protons emit real photons, and
that these real photons cause repulsion by simple bombardment.
Since we are dealing with protons and neutrons here, but not
electrons, I do not have to explain charge attraction. When
speaking of nuclear forces and interactions, charge attraction is
not a concern. However, I have explained charge attraction in
many other places.
The second postulate is that quanta
are spinning. Again, the standard model already accepts this
postulate in a mutated and illogical form. Quanta are given
various quantum numbers called spin or angular momentum and so
on, but then the standard model denies that quanta are spinning
physically. We are told that they are point particles, and that
the numbers are mathematical in nature, not physical in nature.
As a matter of physics, this must be a strange assertion, but it
is an axiom of contemporary physics. Students of physics are
warned, in very serious tones, not to try to diagram or imagine
anything at the quantum level. We are told that the quantum arena
is inherently strange and mysterious, not amenable to logic or
reason. As a matter of job protection, that is an understandable
warning; as a matter of physics, it is just silly.
return to logic, and logic states that if quanta exist, they have
extension. If they have extension, they may have real angular
momentum or spin. This angular momentum can then be analyzed just
like angular momentum at the macro-level. This applies to all
quanta, even the smallest. Photons have real spin just like
planets or stars or galaxies. But here, we only need postulate
that the nucleons are spinning. We know that nucleons have
appreciable size, especially compared to photons, so that
postulate is not difficult to make. Nucleons are huge compared to
photons or electrons, so why not diagram them with spin?
fact, I have already
shown that baryons (protons and neutrons) have four stacked
spins. These stacked spins are fully capable of explaining all
the characteristics now given to quarks, without a quark model.
It is these spins which will allow me to build the nucleus
without the strong force.
To begin, we will look only at
the outer or z-spin of the baryon. The proton and neutron are
both spinning, and since they are approximately the same size,
their z-spins will have approximately the same angular momentum.
What makes the two particles so different is that the proton is
emitting a charge field and the neutron is not. The neutron is
swallowing its charge field, since the photons cannot navigate
the maze of spins. The four spins of the neutron bring the
photons back to the center, while the four spins of the proton
allow the photons to escape. I have diagrammed this in previous
papers. What this means for our analysis here is that the proton
must be treated as an extended particle, while the neutron is
treated as a discrete particle. In other words, in this first
part of the analysis, the neutron is treated mainly as a z-spin,
while the proton is treated as a z-spin plus the shell of emitted
To visualize this easily, think of a lawn
sprinkler, one that spins like a pinwheel. The neutron is like
the lawn sprinkler spinning, but without the water. The proton is
like the lawn sprinkler plus the water being emitted. In this
way, the proton acts like a much larger particle, and that is how
we will diagram it. You see, to make sense of the nucleus, I must
diagram both the particles and the charge field. To do this, I
will have to give the charge field both a presence and a
direction at all points.
As the next step, we will have
to represent the nucleons in some simplified way. Since the
nucleons are spinning, we may simplify the sphere into a circle.
To justify this, I will ask you to first imagine a sphere
emitting a field in all directions. Then, let this sphere spin
about a N-S axis, like the Earth. Due to centrifugal forces,
nearly all the emission will now be moving in a direction out
from the equator. Almost none will be emitted N-S. To put it
another way, the emission field of this spinning sphere will have
developed large holes at the north and south poles. If the
emission field is a charge field, then the charge field will have
large minima in the north and south directions. In fact, the
spinning sphere will act very much like a spinning disk, with
most of the charge being emitted equatorially. The faster the
sphere is spinning, the more it will act like a disk. For this
reason, in a simplified diagram we can treat the proton as a
disk. As a matter of its charge field influence on surrounding
bodies, the proton acts much like a circle or disk, which helps
when we need to diagram it on a piece of paper.
analysis can be applied to the neutron, since it is also
spinning. The z-spin causes most of the angular momentum of the
neutron to be expressed equatorially, so we can also treat the
neutron as a circle.
With these postulates in hand, we
are now ready to look at the simplest nucleus with more than one
nucleon: helium. We know that helium has an atomic weight of
about 4, with two protons and two neutrons, but the standard
model has never told us clearly and distinctly why that is so.
Why doesn't helium just have two protons? Or, why not 1 neutron
or 3 or 4 or any other number? Why is the atomic number 4 stable?
The standard model avoids questions like this with much
misdirection and disinformation, but I can answer it with very
simple mechanics and clear diagrams.
Since I have already
shown that the spinning protons must have large charge holes
north and south, we simply let the protons meet hole to hole.
When helium is created by pressure (as in a star or Big Bang),
these holes naturally align. Once the pressure is turned off—when
the matter escapes the star—the alignment either persists,
because it is in a stable form, or it decays, because it is not.
Two protons hole to hole align naturally under pressure,
since this is the lowest energy state, but once the pressure is
turned off, the two protons are again free to turn. If the two
proton disks start to turn, the two charge fields hit eachother
and we have repulsion. The two protons together are not stable,
even when originally aligned hole to hole, since there is nothing
to prevent them from drifting and turning. But if neutrons are
present in the star, and if they happen to be present in the
right places, they can provide this stability. This is quite easy
you see, the neutrons act like little pillars or posts, keeping
the proton disks from turning and repulsing one another.
will say, “Don't we need at least four posts to keep the
protons from turning toward eachother? Can't the proton disks
still fall together at points A and B?”
don't, and they can't. You would be correct, if the disks were
not spinning. But because they are spinning, stability can be
created by only two posts. For the disks to fall together at
point A, say, would require a point on the edge of the disk to be
high at point C, low at point A, and high again at point D. To do
this, the disk would not “fall”, it would warp. We
have simplified our sphere into a disk, not into a floppy hat.
My assumptions here are very normal, and you can test
them in real experiments with real disks. Spinning disks can be
kept apart, in permanent stability, by two posts, as I have
a more detailed explanation of how neutrons mechanically act as
posts in the alpha particle, you may consult my
2013 paper on Deuterium and Tritium, where I show weaker
charge channels also move north to south here along the neutron
poles. Several of my other later papers also clarify this
that is true, I have already proved my point with regard to
helium. As you can see from the same diagram, no charge is being
emitted into the nucleus. All charge is being emitted to the
outside. We may assume that some tiny fraction of charge force is
being felt by the neutrons, although they are orthogonal to the
main line of charge. They could not provide stability if they did
not resist turning, and they could not resist turning except by
mechanical means. But we will assume that the angular momentum of
the neutrons is more than enough to offset this small amount of
charge encountered. Using commonsense mechanical postulates, we
see that the bulk of the charge is emitted outside the nucleus.
Therefore we have no need for the strong force in the helium
We can apply the same analysis to lithium. We
have three protons and four neutrons. We stack our three disks,
and need four posts to separate them.
But now we arrive
at the beryllium nucleus. In this case we have four protons and
five neutrons. Why that number? Why is the number 9 stable when
the numbers 8 and 10 are not? If we use the same diagram as we
used for helium and lithium, we would expect to need 6 neutrons
to separate 4 protons, which would give us 10. Obviously, the
nucleus has already discovered a more efficient method than our
dual posts. Beryllium 10, with 6 neutrons, is actually very
stable, with a half life of over a million years, so nature does
use the six post model here. But the five post model is also
effective, so given the chance, nature will prefer it. Beryllium
can stack with only five posts due to the fact that the lithium
model is already so stable. If we place the neutrons in lithium
we have such a solid spinning structure that the top level can be
balanced by only one neutron, placed in the middle. The disk
below cannot turn, so the central neutron must resist only the
upper disk. Remember that the neutron is not a narrow pillar. It
has a z-spin radius equal to that of the proton, so it is quite
capable of providing stability in this way. If we let it spin in
the same plane as the protons, this is even more obvious.
will say, “Well, if we can balance disks so easily, why did
we not let one neutron balance the third proton in lithium?
Weren't the first two disks almost as stable?” Yes, they
were, and we can. Lithium 6 is a stable isotope, existing
abundantly in the universe. The reason it isn't as common as
lithium 7 is probably due to the fact that it is burned more
easily in stars. It is slightly easier to break that one post
than the two posts of lithium 7, so stars will burn lithium 6
The same analysis applies to helium 3.
Helium 3 is stable, but easier to burn than helium 4.
stacking method also explains boron, since we use the one post
top and bottom, giving us five protons and six neutrons. As
expected, boron 10 is also stable, but it likes to capture an
extra neutron to achieve even more symmetry and stability.
all the smaller elements, this disk stacking is both simple and
intuitive. And, as you can see, it continues to keep the E/M
field out of the nucleus, even as we go down the periodic table.
Now that we
have a new model of the nucleus, we find that many things are
different than before. Not only have we bypassed the need for a
strong force, we have completely overturned the old model of the
nucleus as a round-ish collection of nucleons, crammed together
willy-nilly. The nucleus is not a formless conglomeration, like a
bag of marbles, it is a well-defined stack, with many rules of
stacking. Beyond that, the nucleus can no longer be considered a
simple ion, seeking electrons. It must now be considered a very
complex engine. Why is it an engine, you may ask? Well, notice
that the stack of protons still has a hole top and bottom. It has
charge minima at both ends of the stack. These holes act as
intake valves, through which the nucleus can capture other
quanta. We may imagine that it can capture anything from photons
up to electrons, and possibly even larger quanta. What does it do
with these captured particles? It “burns” them,
recycling them into a new charge field that it can re-emit. Just
as I have already shown how other quanta are engines in this way,
the nucleus is just a bigger engine. A single proton, for
instance, is already an engine, since it can re-process the
charge field through these charge holes, feeding off the charge
field and quantum field and then excreting the charge field by
flinging it off via its rotation. This explains where the charge
field comes from: we do not need to theorize that it is created
from nothing by the proton, we simply allow that it is infinitely
recycled. The same thing applies to the nucleus. The nucleus can
also capture its own charge field through these charge minima and
then re-emit it.
If this is true, then the various
quantum beasts, including the periodic zoo of nuclei, are not
only engines, they might almost be called alive, since they eat
and excrete the charge field. Not only that, but they eat and
excrete one another. The protons and nuclei aren't just passive
valves through which pass the photons of the charge field. No, it
appears that the protons and nuclei can eat electrons as well,
digesting them by stripping off outer spins, and turning them
into charge photons. Yes, a certain number of lucky electrons get
caught in the whirlpool, and achieve a limited stability in the
shells. But any electrons too high or too low for the whirlpool
get sucked into the charge minima at the ends of the nucleus, and
are turned into photons.
Our new model of the nucleus as
a stack rather than a ball also helps us explain the relative
paucity of elements. With the ball model, it is not clear why we
cannot continue to add nucleons. Adding more marbles to a bag of
marbles does not increase its instability or decrease its
likelihood of existence. But with the stack model, it is clear
that a larger stack implies a greater instability. For two
reasons: 1) the stack becomes less probable the larger it gets,
just as a matter of statistics. The neutrons have to arrive in
the proper places at the proper times, in a fixed method, and
this method becomes less probable with each added nucleon; 2)
just as with a stack of plates, a stack of nucleons must become
more unstable at greater numbers. To start with, the expanding
length of the nucleus must encounter a larger cross section of
the charge field, opening the larger nucleus up not only to
photon wind variations, but to more quantum collisions of all
kinds. As we know, a sphere is the most stable configuration of
volume. A stack is among the least stable, at all levels of size.
This must strongly prejudice nature in favor of the short stack.
In a newer
paper, I address some of the anomalies of the Periodic Table,
including the radioactivity of technetium and promethium, and of
all isotopes above number 83. I will show why the numbers 43 and
61 fail to be stable at any weight, and this will provide us with
more rules of stacking. I will show that the baryons actually
channel charge through the nucleus, updating this paper. Charge
does exist in the nucleus, but it is channeled to prevent
repulsion and to prevent, in many cases, radioactivity. Diagrams
of the larger elements show how this is done, and prove once more
that the strong force is not needed. I also show that the basic
electron orbitals are wrong. Subsequent papers on Uranium
and the Lathanides
also prove this.
If this paper was useful to you in
any way, please consider donating a dollar (or more) to the SAVE
THE ARTISTS FOUNDATION. This will allow me to continue writing
these "unpublishable" things. Don't be confused by
paying Melisa Smith--that is just one of my many noms de
plume. If you are a Paypal user, there is no fee; so it might
be worth your while to become one. Otherwise they will rob us 33
cents for each transaction.