Paul Werbos, also by email, comments

Thank you, Sepp!

I would argue that the results you cite are just exactly half right, if that is possible.

The B and W meson forces of the electroweak theory (EWT) have been very thoroughly validated empirically in other contexts. Likewise the existence of a HIggs force, even if the exact form is not quite yet the standard one. Yet at the same time, the results you discuss are compatible with those of Macgregor, in Power of Alpha.

Julian Schwinger himself proposed years ago that nucleon properties can be predicted by a different kind of model from QCD -- but the politics of QCD have become amazingly medieval. When I understood about Schwinger's suggestion, I did a literature review, to find out whether it had been disproven. I was astounded to learn that all the empirical evidence, while circumstantial, favored Schwinger over QCD and, even more amazing and much more disturbing, that the world has steadfastly refused to do the relatively inexpensive experiments which would settle this one way or another. My review (and pointer to experimental needs) is in the "flying saucer" section of arxiv.org (Ginsparg being a true loyalist for QCD).

Schwinger actually did have some experimental collaborations late in life, showing that the empirical implications of his viewpoint are substantial, more testable than I realized at first, and dangerous. In his model, there is not an absolute conservation of baryon number,
and coherence effects do appear to make it possible to perturb that. So maybe there could be a method in Ginsparg's madness. But even so, in the world as it is now, perhaps the truth does need to get out anyway.

It is possible to reconcile "power of alpha" kinds of numerical relations with modified electroweak theory and Schwinger's picture, if one looks closely enough at the relevant mathematics.

Glen Collins says there were others before who said essentially the same thing:

Hi Sepp,

Thanks for the posting. Dr. Bill Lucas and David Bergman, following the work of the late Dr. Thomas Barnes, have been saying for over 20 years, and demonstrating via calculation, that electrical and magnetic forces, only, hold together everything. This is not new by any stretch.

Best regards,
Glen Collins

A reaction from Si Wells - also by email...

Thank you for the article. This "C Johnson" seems to be an interesting fellow-- whom it would be nice to know a little more about, from an independent source.
Although I have little expertise in the the field of Nuclear Physics, I do find the article on isotope analysis intriguing. I have long held suspicions about the so-called "strong", or nucleon binding, force. There are in fact some 'strong' reasons for rejecting it as a force distinct from the electromagnetic and gravitational forces. The "weak" nuclear force has already been discovered to be a form of EM force: I agree with C Johnson that the strong force may have to follow. As I do not possess the technical knowledge of isotope analysis to critique Johnson's reasoning or to include those findings in my own study, I shall merely present my own concerns and conjectures in a simple open letter to the science community. This will be more expedient than attempting to prepare a formal paper on the subject.

Like Johnson, my initial concern came about over the extremely short-range nature of the strong force. This is entirely uncharacteristic of the other fundamental forces; rather, it would seem more in the nature of an induced phenomenon, like tidal forces between neighboring elastic masses, or electrostatic force augmentation between closely approaching oppositely charged conductors. This theme I have developed into a tentative working hypothesis for nuclear energy. to be elaborated shortly. First, though, let the various lacunae and inconsistencies in currently established theory be exhibited:

1. The strong force, though short-range, is exceedingly powerful compared to the electromagnetic force. On this account, at close quarters the strong force should overcome the electrostatic force to bind charged nucleons firmly together (e.g., protons) Therefore, nuclei of low atomic number should not require neutrons to participate in the binding process, and stable isotopes such as Helium-2, Lithium-3, Beryllium-4 etc. should be encountered regularly in nuclear physics experiments and applications. No such isotopes have ever been discovered. (Indeed, aggregates of 'super protons' should also exist, consisting of at least several bound protons.)

2. Aggregates of pure neutron masses, consisting of dozens, if not hundreds, thousands, and millions of neutrons should exist, and should have been discovered, but no such aggregates have been reported.

3. The existence of neutrons in the heavier elements should have little effect on the overall binding integrity of their nuclei; in fact, increasing neutron numbers could act to destabilize nuclei, since individual protons, alpha particles, and larger fractions of the nucleus, now separated by greater distance, would lose the close-quarter strong-force binding enhancement with each other, and yield to electrostatic repulsion more readily.

4. In that other forces operate through the agency of a physical "field", a "nuclear field" should be detectable as an inverse square function of distance from nucleon field source. No such field has been detected.

5. A separate species of "nuclear radiation" should exist, composed not of electromagnetic or gravitational field flux, but of nuclear field flux, and should be a powerful agent in causing other nuclear reactions. No such radiation has been detected. Instead, all energy released from nuclear reactions has been found to be in the form of kinetic particle emissions or in that of electromagnetic radiation.

Other inconsistencies and inadequacies of standard nuclear theory, such as those entertained by C Johnson, may be discovered in addition to the above.

Like C Johnson's investigations, the foregoing observations point to a purely electromagnetic cause for nuclear binding. Let the neutron matter be supposed to be composed of equal amounts of negatively and positively charged material, normally in distributive equilibrium. The intensity of the close-quarter force may be attributed to an extreme quantum-level induced concentration of electric flux between neighboring proton matter and neutron matter: each interface of these material constituents is characterized by a narrow channeling of flux lines between the positive charge on proton matter which are adjacent to topical concentrations of negative charge, raised as extreme 'charge tides', on the neutron matter. The residual positive flux from the neutron matter, separated from the negative, is directed radially away in sundry other directions. The effect is analogous to the notorious "quantum tunneling" which enables fusion of protons with otherwise insufficient kinetic energy: A sudden, and marked, directional quantizing of the flux concentration between proton and neutron enables extreme augmentation of electrical binding. This topical flux concentration model thus explains the necessity of neutrons in the binding process, while obviating the need for exotic and oddly-acting nuclear "strong forces", independent of electromagnetic and gravitational force actions. This model also accounts for both nuclear fission and nuclear fusion: 'Tidal forces' are characteristically of a greater inverse power dependence than ordinary inverse square forces, and have a tendency toward inverse exponential relation to distance. This is due to extreme deformation of interacting bodies due to the tidal forces themselves. For small nuclei at very close range, the enhanced proximity of interacting agents overwhelms the structural integrity of the bodies, as the 'charge tides' virtually merge into a nearly dissoluable bond. Fusion energy is released in the formation of this bond. Fission becomes possible when the tidal forces of large nuclei are unable to reach effectively across greater nuclear diameters, and the electrostatic proton repulsion begins to dominate, especially when collision with other particles acts to dislocate further the weakened nuclear configuration. Again, energy is released.

This hypothesis is submitted for peer review by NPA members and their associates.