New book published: "The proton's and neutron's internal structures: Physics foundations and new measurements reveal the truth"

    I published a book, which concludes my nuclear studies over the past years, and I believe it is a major milestone in physics. The pieces of the puzzle come together: it finally becomes possible to understand what comprises the matter that we touch, and the internal structures of the proton and neutron become crystal clear. The book is available here:

    https://www.amazon.com/protons-neutrons-internal-structures-measurements/dp/9526531418

    It has been an incredible series of coincidences that led me to writing this book. The existence of CleanHME project, and Giorgio Vassallo's pioneering work and suggestions have been essential.


    I am quite sure that you will find the book interesting, if you are interested to know what matter is made of, and what the internal nucleon structures are. I attached the book abstract and contents.

    Naturally, it will take quite some time for these discoveries to be widely acknowledged and accepted. Perhaps it will be only in the 22nd century. So only read the book if you want to know 22nd century physics - but don't worry it is simpler than the current nuclear equations ;)


    One part of the work is theoretical, and then theory results are compared against experiments. The experiments that I go through are mostly high-energy experiments.

    Does this work have anything to do then with LENR? Actually yes:

    - I firmly believe that the correct understanding of nuclear structures and basic interactions is the foundation for all nuclear technology development - including LENR.

    - I describe a simple experiment, which indicates catalyzed double-beta decay. That is a new type of nuclear reaction, if confirmed. The experimental set-up is simple and replicable, and therefore skeptics can validate it themselves.

    Quote from Andras

    Does this work have anything to do then with LENR? Actually yes:

    - I firmly believe that the correct understanding of nuclear structures and basic interactions is the foundation for all nuclear technology development - including LENR.

    Congratulations. Since it has something to do with LENR, I will ask my colleagues about including it in either this month's Newsletter, or maybe the next.


    You mention it being simpler than "current nuclear equations". Enough so that it will be readable by a layperson?

    Quote from Shane D.

    Congratulations. Since it has something to do with LENR, I will ask my colleagues about including it in either this month's Newsletter, or maybe the next.


    You mention it being simpler than "current nuclear equations". Enough so that it will be readable by a layperson?

    Thank you for informing about it in your newsletter.


    A layperson will surely understand the meaning of experimental data that we describe.
    I think a layperson (who has some scientific education) also has the ability to understand the equations that we use, if he/she knows vector algebra and invests some days into it. At the beginning of the book I list three comprehensive reference articles that explain the needed theory background, and the rest is self-contained.

    So we can assume that you also detected the neutrons wave structure that exactly defines the mass difference between 14-C and 14-N and many other isotopes?


    Of course you can also reproduce Sardins measurements of the Deuterium charge orbits?, that show inside Deuterium there is no neutron structure...


    Sorry that I will not read a book that is based on high energy physics as this is a dead road for understanding anything about particles and mass.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    high energy physics as this is a dead road for understanding anything about particles and mass.

    We agree that the THEORY used by high energy physicists does not help to understand anything about particles and mass.

    I was writing that we analyze EXPERIMENTAL DATA of high energy physics experiments. It's your choice which data you want or don't want to look at.

    Quote from Andras

    I was writing that we analyze EXPERIMENTAL DATA of high energy physics experiments.

    It depends on what you term high energy. Today this is anything in the range of > 100GeV that is totally useless. Earlier on it was 10..100MeV...where we are just on the rim of internal bonds. So useful energies are < 50Mev what is just below the proton Kaon barrier.


    Useful was e.g. B.Schaeffer: Electromagnetic Nuclear Physics -

    https://mysymposia.org/files/aes16_proceedings.pdf


    Where he shows that the strong force does not exist. Its equal the magnetic force.

    Quote from Jarek

    And what are charge distributions, especially of neutron?

    In the case of the neutron we only have the internal binding charge of the EM-flux mass between e(e')-p. The core neutron mass is formed by 2 electron masses - 1 electron charge mass has gone away and an added proton potential mass that compensates the protons charge has formed out. The rest are some small perturbations between the wave structures.

    The internal charge structure between e-p has a 5 rotation symmetry what is the highest possible one.

    This means that we only can find a radially differing charge density as we also did see in Sardins Deuterium charge orbits.

    Obviously classic models cannot help to understand anything about the neutron as standard model physicists believe that mass is a fringe combination of fantasy particles and not a EM-flux compound mass....

    Deuteron is also very interesting - while naively it is p-n with zero electric quadrupole moment, in fact it is quite large: 0.2859 e·fm2.

    Deuterium - Wikipedia
    en.wikipedia.org


    Regarding "classical models cannot explain it", if you mean classical mechanics with orbiting point particles I totally agree, but for classical field theories I disagree.

    In the model I am considering (introduction: https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/2856493 ), we start with reparation of electromagnetism: interpret curvature of some deeper field as electric field, this way Gauss law counts topological charge - explaining the missing charge quantization.


    Further topological defects there are 1D fluxon-like stable vortices, and their simplest knots seem to agree with baryons, more complex with larger nuclei - including halo ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_nucleus ).

    Interaction of two vortices forming such knot enforces hedgehog-like configuration in the center (diagram below), which corresponds to electric charge.

    Proton can just enclose such hedgehog/charge, while neutron has to compensate it - what is costly, explains why neutron is heavier, and is "positive core - negative shell" as concluded from experiments.

    For deuteron, both baryons require electric charge - they share a single one to save energy (binding) - leading to "+-+" charge configuration: electric quadrupole as required.



    Quote from Jarek

    Further topological defects there are 1D fluxon-like stable vortices,

    Deuterium shows a perfect 4D toroidal charge density function as show in the linked Sardin paper (also on RG) Just try to understand Clifford Torus manifolds that are the basic EM flux vortex structure and also necessarily are a stable minimal Lagrangian what is not possible with 1D etc...

    Gauss law is nonsense for non point objects/charge sources as else it fails due to divergence.

    I think your model at its current release can't explain the "halo's nuclei".

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Deuterium shows a perfect 4D toroidal charge density function as show in the linked Sardin paper (also on RG) Just try to understand Clifford Torus manifolds that are the basic EM flux vortex structure and also necessarily are a stable minimal Lagrangian what is not possible with 1D etc...

    Gauss law is nonsense for non point objects/charge sources as else it fails due to divergence.

    The Standard Model is extremely well tested experimentally ... it still leaves some freedom where we can search for, especially: asking for field configurations behind Feynman diagrams - for e.g. classical field theory to be effectively described by something close to the Standard Model.


    However, especially electromagnetic multipoles are extremely well tested experimentally - not getting the basics, like "positive core-negative shell" for neutron, or electric quadrupole moment for deutoron ... would rather make such model disqualified experimentally (at least qualitatively all of it comes automatically from the model I am considering: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2108.07896 ).

    Deuteron additionally has nearly aligned magnetic dipole moments: mu_d ~ mu_n + mu_p ... so it is approximately two aligned magnets - again uniform torus as its model makes little sense.


    Regarding Gauss theorem, it is not only true, but additionally the real one contains built-in charge quantization - e.g. forbidding half-electron.

    We get this charge quantization by interpreting curvature of some deeper field as electric field - this way Gauss law counts topological charge of this deeper field - which has to be quantized ... we also regularize charge to finite energy here (by using Higgs potential).


    Sure, there is additional quark structure, which might be only an interpretation - especially that quarks contains only a tiny fraction of baryon mass.

    However, getting rid of quarks in a proposed model, we still need to explain the reasons quarks were introduced in the first place - like this "positive core, negative shell" for neutron.

    There is also confinement - quarks are only local deformations of charge ... and exactly something like this comes automatically from the model I consider: baryons structurally enforce partial hedgehog - proton encloses it to full hedgehog: elementary charge, neutron compensates it to zero charge (what is costly - explains why neutron is heavier).

    Quote from Jarek

    And what are charge distributions, especially of neutron?

    Here are some 3 articles claiming positive core, negative shell:
    https://inspirehep.net/literature/1377841

    http://www.actaphys.uj.edu.pl/…eries=Reg&vol=30&page=119
    http://www.phys.utk.edu/neutro…chool/lectures/greene.pdf

    Regarding neutron charge distribution, the more correct picture of the positive and negative charge distribution is this attached chart (red color represents positive elementary charge, blue color represents negative elementary charge). It shows that the neutron's positive and negative charges are at almost the same radial distance from the neutron center.

    If you sum up the positive and negative distribution values, you end up with the charts shown in the 1999 and 2015 publications that you cited. Technically correct, but nevertheless gives misleading picture.


    Regarding proton charge distribution, the 1962 publication that you cited gives inaccurate proton radial charge distribution. The more accurate distribution is given by the red curve in the attached chart.


    I show in the book that the proton's and neutron's actual charge distribution extends out to 1.3 fm. The exponential tail beyond 1.3 fm is the measurement error tail (it relates not only to instrument error, but also vacuum noise, etc)


    Quote from Jarek

    Deuteron is well known have strong electric quadrupole moment: 0.2859 e·fm2 - what means "+-+" type charge configuration - cannot be toroidal.


    See e.g. 86 pages experiment-based "The Deuteron: Structure and Form Factors": https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/0-306-47915-X_4

    Jarek: your contemplations about the structure of deuteron, alpha particles, etc. are on the right track in my opinion.

    But you don't need to start from zero: the main result of our book is that it describes the precise and experimentally validated proton and neutron structures.


    The next step is to understand the deuteron structure, which represents the basic nuclear binding structure. It comprises two proton toroids, and one negative charge loop.

    Summing up the magnetic dipole moments of proton + neutron gives almost exactly the deuteron magnetic dipole moment. This indicates that the two proton toroids are axially aligned, and there are two possibilities for this: a) two proton toroids along the same axis, or b) two proton toroids side-by-side in the same plane.

    The "+-+" charge configuration that you deduce from the large electric quadrupole moment suggests option a): i.e. two proton toroids along the same axis and the negative elementary charge circulates also along the same axis, in the middle between the two protons.


    It would be good to understand what exactly stabilizes the negative elementary charge against decay in the deuteron configuration.


    "The Standard Model is extremely well tested experimentally"

    The physics funding pyramid works in such way that both experimentalists and theorists are obliged to keep repeating the above sentence; any person saying otherwise looses funding.

    Having been around for 50+ years, the Standard Model should have given some experimentally verified predictions. I challenge you to show any prediction that it successfully gave (e.g. predicted new particle mass, or something else). I went through this exercise of finding its predictions, and all I found were POST-DICTIONS.

    I did not go into this topic of bashing the Standard Model in the book, because I aimed to keep its tone positive and constructive.


    "Regarding Gauss theorem, it is not only true, but additionally the real one contains built-in charge quantization - e.g. forbidding half-electron"

    Understanding the exact reason for elementary charge quantization is a very interesting topic for me. I will contact you to discuss it further.

    In Natural Units, the elementary charge value is related to the fine structure constant value. I.e. if one understands reasons for the specific elementary charge value then one knows where the 137.036 number is coming from, and vice versa.


    "However, getting rid of quarks in a proposed model, we still need to explain the reasons quarks were introduced in the first place"

    Yes, we go into the historic reasons in the book. There was a certain logic to it in the 1950s and 1960s, but it becomes ever more untenable each decade, as experimental contradictions accumulate. You can see the details in the book.

    I think history would have been different if the electron's internal structure was more seriously investigated, instead of settling on a "renormalized point-particle" electron and "negative energy" positron hypotheses. That would have allowed scientists to rationally discuss the electron vs. proton similarities and differences already a long time ago.

    The Standard Model has evolved for agreement with experiments - every time they have seen a disagreement, they guessed and fit new terms to add to the monstrous Lagrangian below right ... like adding epicycles in the old history.

    It makes little sense to just say it is wrong - instead, we should search for a simpler model (like below left) and try to show it is effectively described by something close to this monstrous Lagrangian (intuitively like being Taylor expansion of some simple model).

    More specifically: being able to describe details of field configurations of Feynman diagrams, predict basic properties like charge quantization, preferably with a lower number of parameters, smaller formulas.



    To build charge quantization into Gauss law, we use the well known formula below right (called e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%E2%80%93Bonnet_theorem ) - counts topological charge by integration - just interpret curvature it integrates as electric field, and your Gauss law counts topological charge - which is quantized.

    25819-pasted-from-clipboard-png


    Not wanting to use model-dependent entities like quarks, we should search for agreement with model-independent experimental properties, like electromagnetic multipoles, profile - e.g. "negative core-positive shell" for neutron, or electric quadrupole moment and aligned magnetic dipole moments for deuteron.

    Quote from Jarek

    we start with reparation of electromagnetism: interpret curvature of some deeper field as electric field,

    Either you do physics or fantasy math. Charge is defined by Faraday's law and can only be found if inside a net volume you have a changing EM flux gradient. Further the charge generated that way cannot occur point wise as it needs a closed flux path where it occurs at the rim! There can be no charge inside EM flux as countless super conduction magnets do prove each day...

    This last corollary makes also clear why the 4-potential is garbage regarding basic charges and fringe ideas like re-normalization are fantasy math and not physics.

    Quote from Jarek

    The Standard Model has evolved for agreement with experiments -

    Yes in the > 100GeV far field scattering limit what has nothing to do with basic particle physics.

    Quote from Jarek

    Regarding Gauss theorem, it is not only true, but additionally the real one contains built-in charge quantization - e.g. forbidding half-electron

    There are mathematical and physical facts and both say teh same. The Gauss integral just gives a winding number = number of charge sources. But this tells nothing about the amount of charge inside a volume!!!!!!

    Just use the most clueless example of a nucleus with teh charge of 10+.

    The main problem is that people go on using the Gauss integral as source of the field gradient and believe that the divergence law works for any number of individual charges in a volume. That's simply utterly wrong as said the integral just counts sources and tells nothing about an external field.

    Quote from Andras

    It would be good to understand what exactly stabilizes the negative elementary charge against decay in the deuteron configuration.

    This is easy once you understand how the flux topology must look like. Just forget all the SM garbage logic and use your brain. Stable orbits must be conform with a minimal Lagrangian.( a 3D torus is none in respect to charge/flux) The neutron has a charge binding orbit that is not fully symmetric. Hence it must decay. In Deuterium the "neutron" bond is fully symmetric. Electrons inside a nucleus have no charge at all. The electron flux is added to the central mass flux and the bond is made by a topological charge that is shared by all flux.

    And once more. Nuclear - internal - binding charge can only be of topological nature. Nuclear internal flux always is at speed >= c and hence it could never symmetrically couple with a moving charge.


    A proton has a 2:3:5 rotation wave structure. With this you can explain which fractions/relation produces which type (potential, magnetic moment, internal binding) of charge.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.