Halo nuclei - requiring to rethink what we know about nuclear forces

    • New

    Halo nuclei like Lithium-11 are observed experimentally, but avoided by most of related persons as literally embarrassing (ask them to see reactions ;) ) - (nearly hidden) proof for how little we know about nuclear forces.

    Wanting to understand nuclei, we need to have this halo possibility in mind - so let us focus on them in this thread.

    They bind single neutrons or even protons - stably (e.g. for miliseconds), in a few femtometer distance - larger than of nuclear force.

    Also, experiments show they require 3-body forces, hence are also called borromean ...


    Personally ( https://arxiv.org/pdf/2108.07896 ) I see them as a perfect argument that there are stable 1D objects connecting halo nucleons like beads on a necklace - color/quark strings being topological Abrikosov-like vortices: going out of the central nucleus, through e.g. halo nucleons and back forming loop, can be two nucleons as beads for effectively 3-body forces (also suggesting that nuclei are generally such knots of various sizes).

    Does anybody know any other approach to explain their binding? How does it look like in your approach?

    I have discussed e.g. with skyrmion people claiming to have models of nuclei - they tried to think about halos, and quickly gave up as hopeless in their approach.


    Here are some materials: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_nucleus

    also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borromean_nucleus , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efimov_state

    good slides: http://theor.jinr.ru/~ntaa/17/files/lectures/Ershov.pdf

    Required 3-body forces: https://indico.cern.ch/event/9…123/1594061/JV_Nupecc.pdf


    Maybe they could help with fusion - through better understanding ... or e.g. using halo as intermediate stage for fusion?

    • New

    Maybe let me add here another embarrassing proof that the mainstream doesn't understand nuclear physics: EMC effect - also usually just ignored:

    EMC effect - Wikipedia

    They assume that quark distribution in nuclei is the same as in proton/neutron ... but experiments show it is completely different ...


    Good talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nj2mtR3DCzk


    I think the simplest example of deformation of quark distribution when forming nucleus is already deuteron: naively n+p shouldn't have electric quadrupole moment (+ - +), but experimentally it has ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…c_and_electric_multipoles ) - requiring deformation of charge/quark distribution.

    Liquid crystal-like view ( https://arxiv.org/pdf/2108.07896 ) automatically brings possible solution (any other?): baryons themselves require some (topological as electric) charge - proton can enclose it, neutron has to compensate it - explaining higher mass, "positive core-negative shell" observed (quark-type) charge distributions ...
    And for deuteron they save (binding) energy by sharing single charge: + - + deformed charge/quark distribtuion, as seen in experiments.



    What other proofs that mainstream doesn't understand unclear physics can we point?

    • New

    Well... The neutron decays into a proton and an electron, perhaps, just maybe, although it is blasphemy, the neutron is not a fundamental particle... GASP! I know, this is too controversial for mainstream. but you know, it would really explain things... I think...

    What is a neutron then, well it is a proton that has less energy due to fusion reaction. H + H --> D
    And the D is made up of two protons that each have decreased their energy (due to the fusion) with a trapped electron in between that is responsible for the actual connection or bond between the two protons so that they can actually notice each other and fuse...


    So neutron is a proton that is de-energized into a nuclear proton sort off, that is why the neutron has less mass than the proton does. A free neutron is a RE-energized proton and thus is booted out of the nucleus again, after absorbing a gamma ray for example. There would be therefore no distinction between the nuclear protons (all de-energized) .

    • New

    Edo


    I notice that there is increasing acceptance in mainstream physics that 'vanishingly rare' P+e - N reactions can occur. But the process is certainly regarded as 'too hot a potato' for many to stomach.

    • New
    Quote from Alan Smith

    Edo


    I notice that there is increasing acceptance in mainstream physics that 'vanishingly rare' P+e - N reactions can occur. But the process is certainly regarded as 'too hot a potato' for many to stomach.

    Oddly enough I would agree more or less.

    Although I consider the neutron a p and e combination, it does not happen "like that" to make a neutron; That is to say, according to the SAM model it is not. Which is of course the basis of my very biased opinion here.
    In SAM the nuclear electron is the connection between protons or at least a prerequisite / a must for two to fuse (and stay together and in the process emit the photon of about 2.225 MeV). In the most simple example the deuteron, we have therefore two protons connected to each other via a nuclear electron. Meaning the nuclear electron more or less e equates what we say is the PeP (proton electron pair} and what mainstream refers to as the neutron.
    Translation -> in order to form a "neutron" we need to have at least two protons involved with the nuclear electron in between. So the inner electron can only be maintained in that state when we have TWO protons, if we have only one proton involved we have the free neutron and that decay's as we all know. So the nuclear electron is only maintained stable with two protons (a deuteron) and therefore creating a single FREE 'neutron' is in my opinion not possible., We can only do so by fusing two or more p together...


    hope this makes sense.

    • New
    Quote from Edo

    Well... The neutron decays into a proton and an electron, perhaps, just maybe, although it is blasphemy, the neutron is not a fundamental particle... GASP! I know, this is too controversial for mainstream. but you know, it would really explain things... I think...

    What is a neutron then, well it is a proton that has less energy due to fusion reaction. H + H --> D
    And the D is made up of two protons that each have decreased their energy (due to the fusion) with a trapped electron in between that is responsible for the actual connection or bond between the two protons so that they can actually notice each other and fuse...


    So neutron is a proton that is de-energized into a nuclear proton sort off, that is why the neutron has less mass than the proton does. A free neutron is a RE-energized proton and thus is booted out of the nucleus again, after absorbing a gamma ray for example. There would be therefore no distinction between the nuclear protons (all de-energized) .

    Before writing, at least read Wikipedia:

    Edited once, last by Aleksandr Nikitin: The essence of cold nuclear fusion at a fundamental level: to achieve a CHAIN ​​reaction of neutron decay, i.e. a beta decay reaction, when a neutron turns into a proton + electron + antineutrino. ().

    Like 1
    • New
    Quote from Edo

    Well... The neutron decays into a proton and an electron, perhaps, just maybe, although it is blasphemy, the neutron is not a fundamental particle... GASP! I know, this is too controversial for mainstream. but you know, it would really explain things... I think...

    This thread was supposed to be focused on halo nuclei, and other proofs that mainstream does not understand nuclear physics - gaps we could fill, like a few gathered below.

    Proton spin crisis - Wikipedia

    Proton radius puzzle - Wikipedia

    EMC effect - Wikipedia

    Free neutron decay - Wikipedia
    en.wikipedia.org


    But to respond, point particles are only in perturbative approximation - in more fundamental nonperturbative they are field configurations (to consider their Feynman ensembles), e.g. electron, among others: ~1/r electric field, ~1/r^2 magnetic field.


    Going to baryons, they are even more complicated, what is seen e.g. in deep inelastic scattering, with charge distributions requiring fractional ("quarks"), which carry only a tiny fraction of energy ...

    Instead of just saying e.g. that neutron is proton + electron, what in some sense might be true, you need to elaborate: propose their field configurations ...



    ps. Talk about this superfluid liquid crystal - Standard model correspondence:

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    Edited 3 times, last by Jarek ().

    • New

    SAM is such a model that breaks with the current mainstream interpretation of physics. So it was meant as a supportive comments with a nod to SAM which deals in the first place with the organization or structure of the nucleus.
    Also, the paper we wrote was not accepted because the fundamental physics is fixed and proven to be true, so the neutron is fundamental they say, thus paper not accepted. (which should not be denied because one does not agree)
    So you see I do not blame you or anyone for not knowing the Structured Atom Model or how we present how it is a very useful model at the ICCF or the IWAHLM, and that is why I try to make people here a bit more aware of SAM in the hopes that it is appreciated and will contribute a bit to some more sensible physics some day (one we can all understand).
    I also point out that our model the neutron is not a fundamental particle like the proton is. Perhaps, just maybe that would be of consequence for any model? Because now we have a nuclear electron again and I would argue there is quite a bit of supportive evidence and papers pointing in that direction. It would very much change fundamental / nuclear physics, would it not?

    • New
    Quote from Edo

    SAM is such a model that breaks with the current mainstream interpretation of physics. So it was meant as a supportive comments with a nod to SAM which deals in the first place with the organization or structure of the nucleus.

    Great, so please elaborate on these issues of mainstream view from perspective of your model.


    Here is from perspective of superfluid liquid crystal view https://arxiv.org/pdf/2108.07896 :


    • Standard Model has originally predicted zero neutrino masses, which turned out nonzero - as vortex loops here, they have mass/energy density per length.

    • Quark mass is only about 1% of proton mass - here baryonis much larger structure, up quark has reduced mass by vortex loop around.

    • Proton spin crisis [54] - while it was expected that quarks carry all proton’s spin, experimental data suggest it is barely 4 − 24%. For proton as simple knot, angular momentum is distributed over the entire field configuration,

    • Proton radius puzzle - (root mean squared) radius through interactions with electron measured as ≈ 0.877 fm, with muon ≈ 0.842 fm [55]. Here electron and muon should have field rotated by π/2, what should modify interactions with proton, also e.g. using taon.

    • Neutron lifetime puzzle - turns out that cold ”bottle” neutrons have ≈ 878 seconds lifetime, while hot ”beam” ≈ 887 seconds [56], [57] - neutron as knot has intrinsic excitation modes, which deexcitation time should correspond to this time difference.

    • EMC effect - turned out quark distributions in nucleons are modified when binding into nucleus [51] - also here e.g. leading to electric quadrupole moment of deuteron.

    • Three-body force, halo nuclei seem not well understood - here rather requiring topological vortices as quark strings

    connecting the nucleons - binding halo neutrons/protons, and effectively acting as 3-body interactions.

    • New

    It is in a book... Read up or do not, your choice.

    • New

    If you want people to read your book, here is your great opportunity - please explain in simple words these problematic fundamental gaps in understanding mainstream has, especially binding of halo nuclei - this thread was supposed to be focused on.

    • New
    Quote from Jarek

    If you want people to read your book, here is your great opportunity - please explain in simple words these problematic fundamental gaps in understanding mainstream has, especially binding of halo nuclei - this thread was supposed to be focused on.

    I pass TYVM, I leave this thread to you and whatever you intended here. Said too much again it seems and do not respond well to such suggestions as if you were a prof talking to a student. So HARD pass!

    • New

    To have a chance to convince the mainstream in some future, we need to target the holes in their understanding - like the ones listed here.

    Just saying "read my book" instead, we will not get far - it should be accompanied with e.g. "because it offers solution to (...) as [1-2 sentence simple explanation]".


    Anyway, if in some future you find answer e.g. to what stably binds halo nucleons in distance larger than nuclear force, and would like to elaborate in a few sentences, I would gladly discuss.

    I don't see a way to avoid 1D structures binding them, like required quark strings - which originally started string theory, and can be also modeled as topological vortices ... would be grateful if you could prove me wrong.

    • New

    Gentlemen theoreticians and experimenters!

    The modern scientific paradigm, which views our World as various material particles and various fields, has exhausted itself. This is evidenced by its inability to UNITE the Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, which describe our SINGLE World, and its inability to explain the phenomenon of hot and cold Nuclear Fusion and the creation of a new carbon-free energy source and non-mechanical Engine. It is no longer possible to get out of this impasse by inventing new entities, new particles, fields, and the like, and by staging numerous meaningless experiments. This impasse can only be exited by the philosophical and metaphysical path, rising to the next level of knowledge, namely:

    1) Unite our SINGLE World in our head and cognize it accordingly as a SINGLE ONLY ENTITY; 2) Then, we will inevitably have to admit that the MOVEMENT of our World cannot be a mechanical movement at a fundamental level. In the end, we should be interested only in movement;

    3) It is necessary to conclude that the non-mechanical MOVEMENT of our World is PRIMARY and ABSOLUTE (that is, eternal, initially given and independent of anything) and the physical and mathematical description of it (the movement) is the task of the new physical science:

    • New

    Jarek, You are in the "cage" of the modern scientific paradigm, where there are particles-nucleons in different fields and they interact with each other under the influence of different forces. I propose to unite everything into ONE entity and it is EVERYTHING, and different particles-nucleons and fields are essentially only different corresponding states of this EVERYTHING - our eternal absolute moving World. Read more carefully. Thank you. Sorry.

    • New

    Your sketch seems to be a kind of trial to unify geometry and mathematics formulations.

    That is helpfull for sure.

    In the same way as proposed Grothendieck and his topos concept.

    Now even if your proposals, your thoughts seem relevant apparently you are blocked to go forward ?

    Anyway, if you aren't able to consider why nature why universe needed to create atoms you shoult stay at the same place more and more..

    • New

    Cydonia , the goal of this thread was discussion of halo nuclei and other opportunities for non-mainstream people: known holes in the mainstream view - waiting to be filled.

    Inconvenient experimental facts - being very useful to also test model candidates, exclude those which cannot handle such experimental facts.


    The most crucial here seems halo nuclei (then EMC) - showing that mainstream's just saying "it's nuclear force" or other fancy names is insufficient - they are stably bind in a larger distances - need some additional binding mechanisms.


    And the only proposal for such stable biding mechanism in larger distances, with "borromean" 3-body force ... seems being connected with some 1D structures, like beads on a necklace.

    Such 1D structures are required in QCD as flux tubes/color/quark string - connecting two quarks and modeled as Abrikosov vortice - which should also go outside nuclei, and why not bind some halo neutrons/protons?

    Is there any other candidate for this binding mechanism?


    And accepting such stable 1D quark strings in nuclei, they believe in LHC collisions there is string hadronization ( http://www.scholarpedia.org/ar…t_generators#String_model ) - created string decaying into the observed particles - we only need to find the correspondence ...


    And searching for such correspondence, it seems there is not much freedom - from https://arxiv.org/pdf/2108.07896 :

    • Such vortex can form simple loops, which should be very light and stable - the only particle created in colliders agreeing with this description seems neutrino.

    • Such vortices could create stable knots - these knots might be quite large, and the only known such varying size objects in particle physics are nuclei, with baryon as the simplest knot: vortex loop around another vortex.

    • Loops before closing could twist like Mobius strip - such twisted loops should be statistically quite frequent, and pions, kaons are dominating in collisions - suggesting

    to interpret this twist as related to strangeness, also for strange baryons twisting their loop.


    So honestly I don't see any freedom to get out of such correspondence (?) - please point if somebody can see.

    And qualitatively everything seems to fit perfectly with the Standard Model, also repairing its issues like the discussed here.

    The difficulty is quantitative description - I have Lagrangian candidate unifying QM+EM+GEM, now there are needed simulations - which are quite difficult, I search for collaboration.

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.