Your friend the STRONG FORCE is your fantasy!

[WildHorse]

If you add one drop to a perfectly full bowl of water carefully balanced on your pretty naked girlfriend's belly, then one drop is displaced and flows out, running into her navel. Not too cold, have mercy!

While momentarily in the bowl, your quivering drop utterly and thoroughly loses individuality and is merged into the general mass of water in your bowl.

So...
when you shoot a particle into an atomic nucleus and observe that as a result another particle emits from the atom, it is NOT evidence that a conglomeration of discrete particles exist in the nucleus, one of which got kicked out.

It is just as likely there is one single charge in the nucleus, where each next proton adds its value into the single summed value of the charge. Just like that drop of water in the bowl balanced on that naked tummy.

When an external particle is fired into the nucleus, it simply merges into the net charge existing there in a merged, single unified state. If it's addition causes imbalance, then the atom kicks out a charge of sufficient value to rebalance itself.

That charge which is emitted then races out from the nucleus and pierces through the electron shells. Only after exiting, it then converts to matter and travels on it's merry way, for CERN scientists and cloud-chamber physicists to perhaps observe.

In other words, the STRONG FORCE DOES NOT EXIST!

WHY does the general conception seem to strongly believe a collection of like-charge protons all are forcibly held together in the nucleus by a "strong force?" Why?

(I wonder about this often and it really bugs me.)

 

[TecHNooB]

are you just speculating or have you done research on this?

 

[Sunny129]

WHY does the general conception seem to strongly believe a collection of like-charge protons all are forcibly held together in the nucleus by a "strong force?" Why?

Why not?

it was proven ages ago that like-charged particles repel one another. it was also proven ages ago that the electromagnetic force is stronger that the force of gravity by several orders of magnitude. so if we know that gravity is not nearly strong enough to counter the electromagnetic force that would otherwise force apart the like-charged particles in the nucleus (protons), then something else must be holding them together - something stronger than both gravity and electromagnetism - and its called the Strong Force.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Why not?

it was proven ages ago that like-charged particles repel one another. it was also proven ages ago that the electromagnetic force is stronger that the force of gravity by several orders of magnitude. so if we know that gravity is not nearly strong enough to counter the electromagnetic force that would otherwise force apart the like-charged particles in the nucleus (protons), then something else must be holding them together - something stronger than both gravity and electromagnetism - and its called the Strong Force.

Speculating and releasing brain farts : Perhaps if you bring them close enough, there is no longer any separate charge to talk about. When you bring protons close enough, the individual oscillations start to overlap. Perhaps the minimum distance to keep them separate is reversed proportional to some x*wavelength. Maybe that is the repulsion and attraction, oscillations in the aether (quantum foam) that is also the charge. The aether also limits to c. But c is not the ultimate limit. That makes no sense.

 

[Turtle.Man]

Do you consider that the behavior that you propose also applies to neutrons? I think we still need a fourth force to explain proton-neutron binding: this phenomenon is clearly not electrostatic in nature.

 

[Sunny129]

Do you consider that the behavior that you propose also applies to neutrons? I think we still need a fourth force to explain proton-neutron binding: this phenomenon is clearly not electrostatic in nature.

i'm not sure if your question is in response to me or the OP, but you are correct that proton-neutron binding is not electromagnetic in nature. it is again the strong force that is responsible for this phenomenon. the strong force works over infinitesimally small distances - on the smallest scale it is responsible for the existence of hadrons (protons, neutrons, pions, kaons, etc.) b/c it holds together their constituents (quarks and gluons), and on a slightly larger scale it is responsible for holding the protons and neutrons themselves together in the nucleus of an atom.

 

[WildHorse]

Why not?

it was proven ages ago that like-charged particles repel one another. it was also proven ages ago that the electromagnetic force is stronger that the force of gravity by several orders of magnitude. so if we know that gravity is not nearly strong enough to counter the electromagnetic force that would otherwise force apart the like-charged particles in the nucleus (protons), then something else must be holding them together - something stronger than both gravity and electromagnetism - and its called the Strong Force.

My conjecture (and question) is that instead of many like-charged particles (pro's) existing in the nucleus, there is one single charge, no discrete separate pros. For example, instead of 79 discrete protons in gold, fighting to fly apart but corralled by a fantastically strong force, they merge into one single positive mass (like the drop merges with the water in the bowl) of charge value 79.

Not that 79 pros "behave" as one unified charge, but rather that the 79 protons actually merge (like drops of water) into only one single thing, having charge of value 79. No strong force necessary because there are not separate discrete protons fighting to explode away from each other.

 

[Gibsons]

Can you propose an experiment that would distinguish your model from the current one?

 

[WildHorse]

Can you propose an experiment that would distinguish your model from the current one?

Mainly I propose that injecting a particle into a nucleus, and then observing a particle being ejected as a consequence, is not evidence that the ejecta existed as a separate particle in the nucleus. I propose the protons are merged into a single charge in the nucleus, like water drops in a bowl, and when a fraction of that charge gets ejected, it converts to matter upon exiting the outermost shell.

What evidence is there that multiple protons exist as discrete bits in one nucleus?

 

[WildHorse]

Can you propose an experiment that would distinguish your model from the current one?

Mainly I propose that injecting a particle into a nucleus, and then observing a particle being ejected as a consequence, is not evidence that the ejecta existed as a separate particle in the nucleus. I propose the protons are merged into a single charge in the nucleus, like water drops in a bowl, and when a fraction of that charge gets ejected, it converts (collapses) to matter upon exiting the outermost shell.

What evidence is there that multiple protons exist as discrete bits in one nucleus?

 

[Sunny129]

Mainly I propose that injecting a particle into a nucleus, and then observing a particle being ejected as a consequence, is not evidence that the ejecta existed as a separate particle in the nucleus. I propose the protons are merged into a single charge in the nucleus, like water drops in a bowl, and when a fraction of that charge gets ejected, it converts to matter upon exiting the outermost shell.

What evidence is there that multiple protons exist as discrete bits in one nucleus?

ok i understand what you're asking now...

first, let's start with the concept that mass and energy are interchangeable (matter is energy, energy is matter). your conjecture that mass converts into charge upon entering the nucleus, and that the fraction of charge that gets ejected converts back to mass upon leaving the atom is flawed because charge is not energy or mass - it is simply a property of matter that causes it to experience a force when in the presence of other charged matter. if the protons in the nucleus of an atom were simply a net charge of no substance/mass, then the atomic mass of the atom would only be dependent on the neutrons and the electrons (mostly the neutrons b/c they are far more massive than electrons). scientists have experimentally confirmed the atomic masses of the elements, so that in and of itself is proof that protons do in fact remain protons while inside the nucleus. that is, they manifest themselves in the form of matter, or else the atomic masses of the various elements would be less than what we currently know them to be. granted, i suppose this isn't direct proof that protons exist as individuals when in the nucleus of an atom, but it is proof that they must continue to manifest themselves as matter while in the nucleus. and with all the nuclear and particle research that has been compiled over the decades, i've never seen anything proposing that protons conglomerate into one giant mass when in the nucleus of an atom.

secondly,your water analogy is a bit deceptive b/c you can't compare the interactions amongst tightly packed molecules/atoms with the interactions amongst the subatomic particles within atoms - the former is governed by the electromagnetic force, and the latter is governed by the strong force. besides, even if a drop of water (or a single basic unit of water - an H2O molecule - for that matter) loses its uniqueness and distinguishability when it is placed in the bowl, it doesn't mean that it becomes one with a super-fine continuous fluid that isn't divisible into smaller units. the same goes for protons and neutrons in the nucleus - they can be accounted for as individual particles of specific mass.

 

[WildHorse]

ok i understand what you're asking now...

first, let's start with the concept that mass and energy are interchangeable (matter is energy, energy is matter). your conjecture that mass converts into charge upon entering the nucleus, and that the fraction of charge that gets ejected converts back to mass upon leaving the atom is flawed because charge is not energy or mass - it is simply a property of matter that causes it to experience a force when in the presence of other charged matter. if the protons in the nucleus of an atom were simply a net charge of no substance/mass, then the atomic mass of the atom would only be dependent on the neutrons and the electrons (mostly the neutrons b/c they are far more massive than electrons). scientists have experimentally confirmed the atomic masses of the elements, so that in and of itself is proof that protons do in fact remain protons while inside the nucleus. that is, they manifest themselves in the form of matter, or else the atomic masses of the various elements would be less than what we currently know them to be. granted, i suppose this isn't direct proof that protons exist as individuals when in the nucleus of an atom, but it is proof that they must continue to manifest themselves as matter while in the nucleus. and with all the nuclear and particle research that has been compiled over the decades, i've never seen anything proposing that protons conglomerate into one giant mass when in the nucleus of an atom.

secondly,your water analogy is a bit deceptive b/c you can't compare the interactions amongst tightly packed molecules/atoms with the interactions amongst the subatomic particles within atoms - the former is governed by the electromagnetic force, and the latter is governed by the strong force. besides, even if a drop of water (or a single basic unit of water - an H2O molecule - for that matter) loses its uniqueness and distinguishability when it is placed in the bowl, it doesn't mean that it becomes one with a super-fine continuous fluid that isn't divisible into smaller units. the same goes for atoms in the nucleus - they can be accounted for as individual particles of specific mass.

Ahhhh it is SUCH a RELIEF that somebody FINALLY understands what I was trying to say. So many people just blew me off without understanding. THANK YOU!

Yes, you have it exactly: what I thought is "let's start with the concept that mass and energy are interchangeable (matter is energy, energy is matter). your conjecture that mass converts into charge upon entering the nucleus, and that the fraction of charge that gets ejected converts back to mass upon leaving the atom."

Having been wondering about this for several years, now I'll be thinking over what you said for at least several days or longer before posting a reply.

THANK YOU!!!

 

[Atheus]

As interesting as this is from a physics point of view...

If you add one drop to a perfectly full bowl of water carefully balanced on your pretty naked girlfriend's belly, then one drop is displaced and flows out, running into her navel.

I must make some phonecalls to try this out... I'll let you know how it goes...

 

[WildHorse]

Do you consider that the behavior that you propose also applies to neutrons? I think we still need a fourth force to explain proton-neutron binding: this phenomenon is clearly not electrostatic in nature.

I think of neutrons as being like the flyweights on the wheel of your car - something thgat's there just to maintain balance of the larger unit (the atom).

Your direct question of whether or not I conjecture that the neutrons also merge, frankly I haven't thought much about that. Right now in this moment, in order to be responsive to you, I lean toward conjecturing that "yes" they do. One + charge of a value equal to the sum of all protons, and one neutral balance.

I obviously don't have DATA. I simply had it drummed into me in school years that the nuclear + and 0 are discrete particles, which I'm STILL trying to reconcile with what seems much more logical and parsimonious, as suggested above.

 

[Sunny129]

I obviously don't have DATA. I simply had it drummed into me in school years that the nuclear + and 0 are discrete particles, which I'm STILL trying to reconcile with what seems much more logical and parsimonious, as suggested above.

the thing we all have to remember about physics at the subatomic level is that a great deal of the material can be quite counter-intuitive and far from logical, which can obviously lead people down the wrong paths in search for answers.

at any rate, i'm glad i was able to provide you with some food for thought. i think in the process of further researching the topic you'll find more and more evidence that protons and neutrons do in fact exist as discrete individuals in the nucleus of an atom. keep us posted though...thoughts and ideas are always welcome in the highly technical forum.

btw, i had to edit my last large response (the one that you quoted) - i accidentally said "the same goes for atoms in the nucleus," which makes no sense...i meant to say "the same goes for protons and neutrons in the nucleus..."

 

[Biftheunderstudy]

Couple of points to make. Our primary evidence for the existence of discrete particles in the nucleus (and indeed the protons and neutrons themselves) come from scattering experiments which insist on a distribution of charge, rather than a big collection of charge.

Next, the ratio of neutrons to protons is not 1:1 and there exists a "valley of stability" for different ratios in each element.

 

[Sunny129]

^ i was hoping you or Quantum Pion might chime in here...

 

[A5]

The short answer is that we don't actually know what the exact nuclear structure is, but even if there were some kind of "nuclear fluid" at the core of an atom, the discrete protons and neutrons would still have to exist due to the Pauli Exclusion Principle.

 

[exdeath]

What evidence is there that multiple protons exist as discrete bits in one nucleus?

Quantum chromodynamics and the existence of gauge bosons such as the gluon.