Why is Proton mass = 1836 x Electron Mass?

Modern physicists are seeking to understand the deep secrets of the Universe as the totality of everything that exists, by smashing protons at very high velocity into each other at the Large Hadron Collider LHC in Geneva, as if the secrets hide inside protons. 

To assist understanding modern physicist have developed the Standard Model of fundamental particles including the proton and electron as very long-lived particles complemented by a  complete zoo of very short-lived particles supposedly identified by LHC proton collision by mass and charge. 

Does it seem reasonable that the secrets of a very very complex Universe are to be find inside a proton? Is it reasonable that the secrets of Finnegan's Wake can be understood by ripping apart a printout into dots forming the letters and then inspect one of the dots all alike by a microscope?  

Maybe not, but that seems the be strategy. One of the secrets to discover at LHC is why according to measurement the mass of a proton is 1836.152673426(32) times that of an electron?

The idea is that the ratio proton-electron mass of about 1836 must come out from some deeper structure, which maybe can be understood by smashing protons. The Creator must have had a good reason to choose this specific number. What was the reason? 

A natural question is if the Universe would look different with another number than 1836? Now, mass reacts to gravitational force, but the gravitational force is very weak on atomic scales and so mass can be set to zero on atomic scale. Atoms would look the same with a different number than 1836, say any number between 1000-2000 or 100 to 4000. 

But then you say: The electronic kinetic energy in Schrödinger's equation for an H atom takes the form 

• $\frac{\bar h^2}{2m_e}\int\vert\nabla\psi\vert^2dx$

where $\bar h$ is Planck's constant, $m_e$ is the electron mass and $\psi$ is the electron wave function (after normalising $\frac{e^2}{4\pi\epsilon_0}=1$). We see here the presence of $m_e$ and so the physics of an H atom seems to depend on the mass the electron!

But this cannot be true since gravitation is very very weak on atomic scales. In fact, the appearance of $m_e$ in the kinetic energy comes from the ad hoc postulation of the Schrödinger equation with electronic kinetic energy viewed to be analog of the kinetic energy of a macroscopic particle:

• $\frac{p^2}{2m}$   

where $p$ is momentum and $m$ mass with the connection 

• $p=i\nabla\psi$

which however lacks physics as a purely formalistic connection. This is unfortunate and has brought much confusion.

What counts on atomic scales is spatial size or compressibility, but not mass since gravitation is so weak. The size of the proton shows to be about $10^{-5}$ of the size of the electron in an H-atom. More precisely, the factor 

• $\frac{\bar h^2}{2m_e}$   

in Schrödinger's equation describes the size of the electron (as the size of the H-atom), which comes out from a balance between attraction from proton depending on distance and compression of the electron also depending on distance. The ground state of an H atom is formed by a space-filling electron cloud finding minimal energy by seeking to be close to the proton while paying a compression cost. 

But the Schrödinger equation does not carry information about the mass of proton and electron. 

So it seems that the secret of 1836 cannot be uncovered on atomic scales and that 1836 is just any number which is large enough to make a distinction between proton and electron. 

With kinetic energy scaling with $\frac{1}{2m}$ we are led to large $m$ connecting to small size, that is mass density scaling with $m^4$. 

What counts is the compressibility of proton vs electron. This connects to the discussion in previous post of a neutron as an "inverted H-atom" where proton and electron change roles. More to come on this aspect. 

In classical particle physics, particles are point-like without size, which is not physics and so physics was searched in the form a tiny vibration strings of size $10^{-35}$ m or Planck scale, however in 11 spatial dimension and so again physics was missing. In RealQM electrons appear as non-overlapping charge densities without self interaction in 3 space dimensions with real physical meaning. 

Modern Physics as Classical Physics 1

Let's now fill in details to the items 1-4 of this post. We start with 1 expressing a main stumbling block for classical physics as instant action at distance asking for an infinite speed of propagation of gravitational force. This is how the Universe apparently is designed: If there was a delay by finite speed of propagation of gravitational force, the Earth would spin out from its elliptic track around the Sun, a fact acknowledged by everybody including modern physicists. Newton accepted apparent infinite speed of gravitational force as a necessary fact to make the Universe turn around as observed.  

Then came Einstein with his General Theory of Gravitation GR as modern physics with the speed of gravitation equal to the speed of light. In oder to make GR fit with observation somehow the delay from finite speed of gravitation had to compensated by some other effect of GR exactly cancelling the delay, and it was claimed that GR upon difficult close inspection in fact contained such a forbet prediction effect although impossible to verify, since the equations of GR are impossible to solve in any generality. 

The problem of apparent infinite speed of gravitation thus remained in modern physics as a true mystery. Einstein’s brilliant idea that the speed of gravity is equal to the speed of light in vacuum lacks physical explanation. The speed of light through glass is smaller than in a vacuum. Is it the same for gravity? Probably not since gravitation shielding is impossible, while pulling the curtain keeps light out.

But there is a way of looking at Newtonian gravitation, where instant action at distance is replaced by local instant action, where the infinite speed of gravitation is only an apparent non-real effect. The argument is this: Newtonian gravitation is described by Poisson's equation 

• $\rho (x,t)=\Delta\phi (x,t)$,         (N)

where $\rho (x,t)$ is mass density at the point $x$ in Euclidean space and time $t$, $\phi (x,t)$ is gravitational potential and $\Delta$ is the Laplace differential operator acting on $x$ as a local operation of differentiation. 

The standard way of looking at the equation (N) creating problems, is to think of mass density $\rho$ as given and gravitational potential $\phi$ as a derived quantity obtained by solving Poisson's equation $\Delta\phi =\rho$, which is a global process asking for infinite speed of gravitation.

But there is another way, and that is to view $\phi$ as given and $\rho =\Delta\phi$ as a derived quantity obtained by the local operation of differentiation, which does not require infinite speed of gravity. This means that the gravitational potential is giving mass to matter as an instant local operation compatible with a finite speed of gravitation, to be compared with the standard view that mass creates gravitational potential as an instant global operation asking for infinite speed of gravitation.  

In the new view mass conservation takes the form 

• $\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\Delta\phi +\nabla\cdot m=0$,

where $m$ is momentum, which can be seen as recipe for updating $\phi$ from $m$ without need of infinite speed of gravitation. We could view the recipe being effected computationally with the speed of gravitation tending to infinity, without the computation representing physics.

We can also view (N) as gravitational potential and mass density acting in lock-step, as a form of perfect harmony in the sense of Leibniz.

In this perspective, where gravitational potential gives mass to matter by local instant differentiation, there is no need of any gravitons as some form of gravitational force-carrying fundamental particles. This could be seen as a great relief to an open-minded modern physicist, since no gravitons have been found. 

This is described in more detail in these posts.

The reason why to human beings matter has been viewed primordial with gravitational potential somehow generated by presence of mass, asking for infinite speed of gravitational force, is probably that to humans presence of matter can be seen (the Sun), while gravitational potential cannot be seen, only felt as  gravitational force as gradient of gravitational potential. To a blind person for whom only the feel of gravitational force is present, the new view may be more natural. 

Has the new view been inspected and discarded as crank physics by modern physicists speaking about gravitons without observations? 

Basic Difference Between Classical and Modern Physics

This is the first in a sequence of posts starting from the previous post asking if Newtonian Mechanics NM + Maxwellian Electromagnetics EM as classical physics describing all of the macroscopic world, can also explain the world of modern physics including General Relativity GR describing the macro-macroscopic world and Quantum Mechanics QM/Standard Model describing the microscopic world? 

Let us thus ask if NM+EM can also describe the microscopic world, leaving for now out the question if NM really needs an extension to GR for macro-macroscopics. 

We then add RealQM to the picture as a new form of quantum mechanics formulated within classical physics. RealQM then emerges as a part of classical physics describing microscopics of molecules, atoms, nuclei and electrons in classical continuum mechanical terms. This not modern physics as classical physics, but modern physics as an extension of classical physics to microscopics.

In RealQM individuality therefore plays the same role in microscopics as in macroscopics, where occupancy of a certain region in space and time identifies different components in classical continuum mechanical terms. This is a minimal unique signature, which is complemented by mass and charge.

In QM individuality is lost. Electrons do not occupy different regions in space and time because they do not have any space-filling quality, only appear as abstract probabilities without individuality and real physical presence. 

RealQM has an interpretation as physics in the same sense as Maxwell's equations for electromagnetics or Navier-Stokes equations for fluids.

No satisfactory interpretation of QM has been found, despite hard work by an army of sharp physicist minds for 100 years. The logical conclusion can only be that QM is not physics. 

Despite the lack of individuality in QM, modern physicists speak about electrons orbiting nuclei or filling orbitals in space as if they have individuality, causing much confusion for students and the general public. 

In the Standard Model electrons are interacting by exchanging (virtual) photons depicted as Feynman diagrams such as:

It is hard to not see that here electrons can be identified by left-right, but that is not what you are supposed to see. There is no left electron and no right electron, just two interacting electrons jumping around with presence nowhere and everywhere. The big trouble with the Standard Model is that without individuality self-interaction is possible, which creates infinities requiring renormalisation to be eliminated however without physics, adding to confusion for students and the general public. 

If politicians allocating tax money to Particle Colliders supposed to verify the Standard Model, can understand the meaning of the Standard Model, more or less, they can decide to cut financing because the model does not make sense to them. If they or the general public cannot understand, cutting funding can be more difficult.    

    

Does a Modern Physicist Know Classical Physics?

Is it possible that fundamental physics can be reduced to combinations of 

• Gravitation governed by Newtonian Mechanics (NM).
• Electromagnetics governed by Maxwell's equations and Coulomb's Law (EM). 

This is true for classical physics, while modern physics is commonly viewed to need other forms of fundamental physics as Special/General Relativity SR/GR and Quantum Mechanics QM. The trouble with modern physics is that GR and QM since 100 years are understood to be incompatible/contradictory with no resolution in sight, which has caused a crisis of modern physics witnessed by many leading physicists, but at the same time denied. The contradiction has driven physicists to seek resolutions on very small scales of $10^{-34}$ m of QM as String Theory, and on the very large scales of the whole Universe as GR, without progress since 50 years, both beyond any form of direct experimental confirmation, thus forms of speculation. 

Of course there were reasons perceived to step out of the NM+EM paradigm, which had worked so amazingly well for all of classical physics, at the turn to modern physics at the beginning of the 20th century. Here is where classical physics stumbled:

1. Instant action at distance in NM: (Einstein GR)
2. Irreversibility in thermodynamics (2nd Law): (Boltzmann Statistics)
3. Absence of the ultra-violet catastrophe in black-body radiation: (Planck Statistics)
4. Null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment: (Einstein SR)

1 was the classical problem left unresolved by Newton, which did not stop classical physics to boom, with 1 and 4 supposedly resolved by Einstein as GR/SR.

2 came out of observations of irreversible transfer of mechanical energy to heat energy in contradiction to the fact that the laws of NM and EM are formally reversible. Boltzmann used a big hammer to resolve this paradox in the form of statistical physics followed by Planck's statistics to explain 3: The very essence of classical physics as deterministic cause-effect physics was given up in a Faustian deal. This started the Fall of Physics. 

3 and 4 were essentially null results, which do not serve well as stepping stones to progress. 

Modern physics thus grew out from efforts to resolve 2-3 by introducing entirely new physics based on statistics taking the form of QM, and SR/GR to resolve 1 and 4.  

Once the Fall was made there was no limit to what new physics could be invented which culminated at the end of the 20th century after 100 years of free fall, with the Standard Model and String Theory beyond observation. The atomic bomb served to give theoretical physicists unlimited resources to create new physics. But the fundamental problems 1-4 were left without credible answers, with only deepened mystery.

In books and blog posts I have suggested resolutions of 1-4 within classical physics. Theoretical physicists have not shown any openness to any form of discussion. Is the reason that a modern physicist does not have to know much about classical physics/mathematics, because it has been replaced by modern physics, like the epicycles of Ptolemy? To understand if 1-4 cannot, or in fact can, be resolved within classical deterministic physics, seems to me to require solid knowledge of classical physics. Is this included in the curriculum for physics education today? Or is it primarily focussed on SR/GR and QM? 

The less you know, the more certain you can be that you are right. (Dunning-Kruger effect)

Steven Weinberg in Dreams of a Final Theory unhappy with the linearity of QM, seeking an alternative but failing:

“This theoretical failure to find a plausible alternative to quantum mechanics, even more than the precise experimental verification of linearity, suggests to me that quantum mechanics is the way it is because any small change in quantum mechanics would lead to logical absurdities. If this is true, quantum mechanics may be a permanent part of physics. Indeed, quantum mechanics may survive not merely as an approximation to a deeper truth, in the way that Newton’s theory of gravitation survives as an approximation to Einstein’s general theory of relativity, but as a precisely valid feature of the final theory.”

In the next post I will briefly indicate how 1-4 can be explained within NM+EM as if that could be the final theory.

Russian Doll Fractal Atomic Physics

Big Doll = Atom with Nucleus = Small Doll .

RealQM presents a new Schrödinger equation for atomic physics as a positive nucleus of size $10^{-15}$ m surrounded by a collection of non-overlapping electrons densities without self-repulsion of size $10^{-10}$ m, which in ground/excited states organise into shells as solution to an energy minimisation packing problem under Coulomb attraction/repulsion.

RealQM is a classical continuum model in 3 spatial dimensions describing deterministic physics, fundamentally different from standardQM in multidimensional configuration space with unclear physics as statistics.  

Similarly RealQM presents a Schrödinger equation for an atomic nucleus of size $10^{-15}$ m as a negative kernel of size $10^{-20}$ m surrounded by a collection of non-overlapping proton densities without self-repulsion of size $10^{-15}$ m organizing into shells under Coulomb attraction/repulsion.

The change of spatial scale between atom and atomic nucleus of $10^5$ is translated to binding energies with the same factor.

The basic case is represented by two possible configurations of 1 proton and 1 electron: As a H atom with proton kernel surrounded by an electron density with binding energy 13.6. eV, and as a neutron N as an electron kernel surrounded by a proton density with binding energy 0.78 MeV with a factor of about $10^5$. 

What emerges is a form of Russian Doll with an H atom as a Big Doll with nucleus as a Small Doll composed in the same way with just a switch of sign of charge. It is possible to think of even bigger dolls built in a similar way such as planet systems around a star. 

In RealQM an atomic nucleus is held together by Coulomb attraction between electron kernel and surrounding proton density thus overpowering proton repulsion, in the same way an atomic ion is held together by Coulomb attraction between proton nucleus and surrounding electron density overpowering electron repulsion. There is here no need to ad hoc introduce a strong force as in the Standard Model. 

The configuration can in principle be repeated with an even smaller doll with positive kernel of even smaller size of $10^{-25}$ m. But that is beyond observation and so it seems reasonable to search for an explanation why there are so to speak only two atomic dolls: Atom = Big Doll and atomic  nucleus = Small Doll. 

That requires that the kernel of an atomic nucleus as a negative charge of strength more than 1 is free of self-repulsion, since it has no positive kernel overpowering repulsion as in Big and Small Doll. This remains to be understood. Can two electrons be compressed to a negative charge density -2 without self-repulsion? Is this possible by some form of quantum gravity? In any case this makes two electrons fundamentally different from two protons for which there is no need of compression to +2 without self-repulsion.

A Russian Doll system as a form of fractal system describing the Universe as a repeating pattern, would thus end with a Small Doll in the form of a nucleus as a negative charge density of size $10^{-20}$ m without self-repulsion surrounded by a collection of non-overlapping proton densities organised into shells as solution to an energy minimisation packing problem. Such a nucleus would be held together by Coulomb attraction overpowering repulsion without need of the strong force of the Standard Model.  

Recall that the early Bohr model of an atom was a planetary system of electrons/planets orbiting a nucleus/Sun. In RealQM this is replaced by a stationary system of non-overlapping electron densities surrounding a nucleus as solution to an energy minimisation packing problem. Compare with Fractal Cosmology. It seems that we can find fractals on largest scales governed by gravitational attraction and smallest scales governed by Coulomb electric attraction, but not on human scales showing more complexity.  

Note that it would be sensational if nuclei show to be held together by Coulomb attraction as classic physics, rather than by a residual of a strong force between quarks as postulated in the Standard Model. 

PS1 When I ask professional physicists if in the existing literature there is something like RealQM, they do not give any answer, but tell me that standard Quantum Mechanics, whatever that is, and the Standard Model are by far the best theories about physics ever created and that they agree with all experiments to an incredible precision and so there is no reason to look at anything else, in particular nothing from a mathematician. In the next moment they tell that in fact both models have severe shortcomings, which motivate more tax payer money to new fundamental theoretical physics to be discovered by a new much bigger Large Hadron Collider.

PS2 From A Search for Exotic Higgs Decays by Burzynski: In spite of the overwhelming successes of the SM, there are several glaring issues with the SM which remain unresolved. First and foremost, there are many fundamental phenomena observed in nature that are not predicted or explained by the SM. These include gravity, the nature of dark matter, neutrino masses, and the matter-antimatter asymmetry observed in the universe, among others. Second, there are theoretical problems with the SM which imply a lack of complete understanding of underlying phenomena. Examples include the hierarchy problem and the strong CP problem.

Steven Weinberg Ends Unhappy with Quantum Mechanics

               Whatever the final laws of nature may be, there is no reason to suppose that they are designed to make physicists happy. 

Nobel Laureate in Physics Steven Weinberg (1933-2021) was a leading authority of modern physics. At the end of his career he speaks out his disappointment with quantum mechanics as the essence of modern physics: 

• I am not as happy about quantum mechanics and not as dismissive of its critics, as I used to be.
• It is a bad sign in particular that those physicists who are happy about quantum mechanics, who do see nothing wrong with it, do not agree with each other what it means. 
• The problem has specifically to do with the act of measurement. There are two approaches that attempt to deal with this problem, the "instrumentalist" and "realist", and I do not find either of them satisfactory.  
• Maybe it is just the way we express the theory that is bad, and that the theory itself is right. I don't know. I have not found what that may be.

The fact, acknowledged by everybody including Weinberg, that "nobody understands quantum mechanics" in the words  of Richard Feynman, is balanced by the text book message that "computations according to the rules of quantum mechanics always agree with experiments". In other words, quantum mechanics is a form of perfect practical know-how or "voodoo science". If a quantum mechanical computation does not agree with experiments, the computation is altered until perfect agreement. Is this what theoretical physics is about?

What would have made Weinberg happy, is a new quantum theory without probability and measurement problem as a new realist theory about what is. This is what RealQM offers. If you are unhappy with text book quantum mechanics, this can make you more happy, if you only give it a try. If you are happy with text book quantum mechanics, Weinberg would tell you that maybe you are fooling yourself?  

The Neutron as Key to a Periodic Table for Nuclei

In recent posts I have tested an idea to view a system comprised of 1 proton + 1 electron in two different ways held together by Coulomb attraction:

• Hydrogen atom H of size $10^{-10] m with point-like proton kernel surrounded by electron density.   (H)
• Neutron N of size $10^{-15}$ m (inside atomic nucleus) as point-like electron kernel surrounded by proton density with a change of spatial scale of $10^5$. (N) 

The observed spatial scale between H and N is thus $10^5$. A transition from H to N would correspond to "shrinking" by a factor $10^{10}$ of the electron density around a proton into forming a kernel of a proton density, thus a a very strong shrinking. 

The observed binding energy of 13.6 eV for H and 0.8 MeV for N correspond to a spatial scale $D=0.6\times 10^5\approx 10^5$, in accordance with the $\frac{1}{r}$ spatial scaling of a Coulomb potential. 

Both systems can be described by a RealQM Schrödinger equation in non-overlapping wave functions $\psi_e(x)$ and $\psi_p(x)$ for electron and proton densities, as minimisers of total energy $E$ given by: 

• $E(\psi_e,\psi_p, m_e, m_p)=\frac{1}{2m_e}\int\vert\nabla\psi_e(x)\vert^2dx+\frac{1}{2m_p}\int\vert\nabla\psi_p(x)\vert^2dx-\int\int\frac{\psi_e^2(x)\psi_p^2(y)}{\vert x-y\vert} dxdy$   (S)

as the sum of separate kinetic energies for electron and proton and common Coulomb potential energy, where $\frac{1}{m_e}$ and $\frac{1}{m_p}$ set spatial scales of electron and proton.    

The standard case H is represented by minimisation of E without proton kinetic energy (formally $m_p=\infty$) and central point-like proton into a binding energy of $13.6$ eV.    

The non-standard case N is represented by minimisation of E without electron kinetic energy (formally $m_e=\infty$) and central point-like electron, which agrees with observation with $\frac{m_p}{m_e}=D$. 

We understand that since the above Schrödinger model does not involve gravitation, only Coulomb attraction between charges of different sign, the physical meaning of the factors $m_e$ and $m_p$ in the kinetic energies, do not connect to mass but rather to (inverse) spatial scale. What determines the roles of protons and electrons is their spatial scale. 

The conception that the mass of proton is about 2000 times that of an electron is thus not in conflict with $D\approx 10^5$ in the above Schrödinger model.   

The basic idea is to view the formation of a neutron inside a nucleus as a form of "capturing" by a proton density of an electron into the center of the proton density in a process at high temperature/pressure driven by Coulomb attraction under release of 1 MeV. The idea of electron capturing by a nucleus was an important element of nuclear physics even before the advent of the Standard Model in the 1960s.

Further capturing of electrons can create nuclei as a negative kernel surrounded by non-overlapping positive proton densities organised into shells, as a direct analog to an atom with a positive kernel surrounded by non-overlapping negative electron densities organised into shells. 

Recall that in the Standard Model the strong force appears as an ad hoc invention of remarkable fanciness.  If you ask a professional physicist what keeps a nucleus together thus overpowering Coulombic repulsion between protons, you get the answer that it is a form of "glue" of unknown physical nature named "strong force" transmitted by "gluons" of 8 different "colors" serving as "force carriers" between 6 different "quarks", where a proton is turned into a neutron when one of its two "up-quarks" turns into a "down-quark". If you ask how this can be you get the help that since very much energy is released when H fuses to Helium in the Sun a very strong force must be involved and this is the ”strong force” thus proven to exist. But gravitation is missing in the Standard Model because no “graviton” as force carrier is believed to exist, which is a trauma of modern physics since 50 years without hope.

In RealQM a nucleus has a negative kernel surrounded by positive proton densities held together by Coulomb attraction, as an analog to an atom with a positive kernel surrounded by negative electron densities. The observed "periodic table for nuclei" starting with 2, 8, 20,...appears as an analog to the periodic table for atoms starting 2, 8, 18... 

In the Standard Model a nucleus consists of a collection of protons and neutrons, with each proton and neutron consisting of three quarks held together by gluons, without explanation of the observed periodic table for nuclei.  

The great triumph of modern physics was to model the atom in terms of Coulombic attraction/repulsion between + and - charges using a basic element of classical deterministic physics in a new setting of statistics. RealQM shows that the new setting is not needed. Both atom and atomic nucleus can be modeled within classical deterministic mathematical continuum physics. This should be met with relief by students of physics struggling with weird concepts of modern physics.

The next step is to understand the formation of the nucleus of Deuterium D consisting of 1 proton and 1 neutron, or in RealQM 2 proton densities surrounding 1 electron kernel. In the Standard Model D is held together by a residual strong force as a left-over of the strong force holding proton and neutron together, like a molecule held together by residuals of Coulomb forces holding atoms together.  RealQM makes this analog real for nuclei: Both atoms and nuclei are held together by Coulomb forces. 

Pauli Unhappy with his Exclusion Principle

A corner stone of standard Quantum Mechanics stdQM is the Pauli Exclusion Principle PEP stated by Pauli himself above. Pauli was awarded the 1945 Nobel Prize in Physics for the 

• discovery of the Exclusion Principle, also called the Pauli Principle.

In his Nobel Lecture Pauli recalls the basic problem he resolved by PEP:

• The series of whole numbers 2, 8, 18, 32... giving the lengths of the periods in the natural system of chemical elements, was zealously discussed in Munich, including the remark of the Swedish physicist, Rydberg, that these numbers are of the simple form $2*n^2$ for $n=1,2,3...$.
• The question, as to why all electrons for an atom in its ground state were not bound in the innermost shell, had already been emphasized by Bohr as a fundamental problem.

But Pauli did not believe that PEP was a scientifically convincing resolution: 

• Already in my original paper I stressed the circumstance that I was unable to give a logical reason for the exclusion principle or to deduce it from more general assumptions. 
• I had always the feeling and I still have it today, that this is a deficiency.

Pauli would probably say the same today: PEP is a mystery appearing as an ad hoc explanation of the fact that electrons in atoms organise into shells according to $2*n^2$ for $n=1,2,3...$ and so form the periodic table. The factor 2 would then be an expression of the 2-valuedness of spin. 

RealQM presents a different model of an atom where electrons appear as non-overlapping charge densities  which occupy a certain volume of space and the shell system of the periodic table resolves an energy minimisation packing problem. The 2 electrons of a Helium atom are in RealQM separated by a plane which gives the 2-valuedness a direct geometric meaning, which is passed on to atoms with more electrons. In RealQM there is no need of a PEP. This would have made Pauli happy and maybe another Nobel Prize.  

Pauli and Bohr eagerly studying physics of a spinning top.

RealQM for Atom and Nucleus

Real Quantum Mechanics RealQM offers a new model of atoms and atomic nuclei in the form of a classical 3d continuum system of partial differential equations describing a set of non-overlapping charge densities interacting through Coulomb potentials. This is a generalisation of Schrödinger's equation for the Hydrogen atom consisting of one proton and one electron, to configurations with many protons and electrons, which is different from the multi-dimensional Schrödinger equation in configuration space as the basic model of standard Quantum Mechanics stdQM. 

RealQM models an atom as a point-like nucleus/kernel of positive charge $+Z$ surrounded by $Z$ electron densities of charge -1 organised in shells with the innermost shell containing 2 electrons, the next shell a maximum of 8 electrons, the next 18 according to the pattern $2*n^2$ for $n=1,2,...$. The shell system is formed as resolution of an energy minimisation packing problem of non-overlapping electron densities of width scaling with (inverse of) the effective kernel potential reduced by shielding from electrons in inner shells, thus with increasing width for outer shells. 

RealQM models an atomic nucleus as a point-like kernel of negative charge $-Z$ surrounded in the basic case by $2*Z$ proton densities of charge +1. Only Coulomb potentials are involved. No need of strong/weak nuclear force as in the Standard Model of stdQM.

The basic difference between an atom and a nucleus both consisting of a system of protons and electrons, is then the geometric size of the system, with $10^{-10}$ m typical of an atom, and $10^{-15}$ m that of a nucleus, thus with a factor about $10^5$.

The binding energy of RealQM system scales with the geometric size of the system, and so we expect to pass from eV to MeV from atom to nucleus, which is what is observed and also computed by RealQM Nuclear Simulator. The basic reason is that a Coulomb potential scales with 1/distance.

RealQM thus offers an explanation of the $10^5$ factor between atomic and nuclear energies as a geometric scale effect. The basic element is here the concept of non-overlapping charge densities of different widths, which is not an element of stdQM. 

As an example consider the formation of the nucleus of Deuterium from 1 electron kernel surrounded by 2 proton densities (under high pressure and temperature) as a nucleus analog of a $H^-$ ion with 1 proton kernel surrounded by 2 electron densities, under the release of 1 MeV as an analog to the formation energy of about 10 eV of $H^-$. 

To form a $^4 He$ nucleus from 2 electrons surrounded by 4 proton densities, as an analog to $He^{2-}$, the two electrons have to be compressed (under high pressure and temperature) into a -2 kernel under additional release of energy to give the observed binding energy of about 7 MeV. This process remains to be explained.    

The binding energy in RealQM scales with $Z^3$ with only one shell, and with $Z^2$ with a typical sequence of shells as observed, and so with $Z$ per nucleon as roughly observed for $2\le Z\le 30$, which shows release of energy under fusion (up to $^{56}Fe$):

Recall that a nucleus in the Standard Model is viewed as an aggregate of protons and neutrons held together by a strong nuclear force as new physics, while in RealQM a nucleus is considered to be an aggregate of protons and electrons held together by classical Coulomb physics. Ockham would probably choose RealQM before the Standard Model. 

Modern vs Newtonian Physics

The concept of force carrier is central to modern physics crowned by the Standard Model of atomic/nuclear physics, with the force between two particles established by a carrier particle bouncing back and forth. The photon is identified as the carrier of the electromagnetic force and gluons as carriers of the strong nuclear force between protons and neutrons, while the graviton as carrier of the gravitational force has not been identified despite major efforts. 

In contrast, the concept of force carrier has no role to serve in Newtonian physics since forces are either transmitted by instant action by contact or by instant action at distance as gradients of electric or gravitational potentials connected to distributed charges and masses, as discussed in more detail in blog posts under tag New View on Newtonian Gravitation.

It is natural to ask if the concept of force carrier is useful, if carriers of gravitational force are missing and if electromagnetic forces more naturally arise from electric potentials rather than from photons bouncing back and forth as unnatural physics? 

But what about gluons as carriers of the strong nuclear force needed to keep protons and neutrons together in a nucleus?

In recent posts, I have tested the idea that a nucleus can be held together by electromagnetic forces, thus without need of any strong force, in basically the same way an atom is held together by Coulombic interaction between charges of different sign. Computations with RealQM suggest that this may be possible. A nucleus here consists of a central point-like negative charge density (electrons without internal repulsion) surrounded by non-overlapping positive charge densities (protons), with the "compression" of the electrons in fusion releasing massive energy.

In any case, the idea of force carrier presents severe difficulties to modern physics and one way to handle this situation is to give up the idea in a return to Newtonian physics.   

 

Real Quantum Mechanics for Atomic Nuclei

The Nobel Prize in Physics 1963 was awarded to  Maria Goeppert Mayer (1/4) and Hans Jensen (1/4) for a shell model of atomic nuclei with the protons and neutrons forming a nucleus arranged in shells in a attractive spherically symmetric potential. 

The model was inspired by the standard quantum mechanics (stdQM) model of an atom as a positive pointlike nucleus/kernel surrounded by electrons arranged in shells with shell $n$ containing $2*n^2$ when full, for $n=1,2,3...$. The shell model for atoms was motivated by the Pauli Exclusion Principle reflecting that electrons can have two forms of spin (up and down) and that two electrons with the same quantum identification including spin cannot occupy the same position. 

Real Quantum Mechanics RealQM offers a model of an atom as a system of non-overlapping electron densities interacting by Coulomb potentials, where an electron is identified by space occupancy only. RealQM gives a new explanation of the sequence $2*n^2$ as a natural solution of a packing problem where the size of an electron scales with the effective attraction from the kernel under shielding from electrons in inner shells. 

RealQM can be extended to a nucleus consisting of $Z$ protons and $N$ neutrons with in the basic case $N=Z$ appearing as a pointlike negative kernel of charge $-Z$ surrounded by $2*Z$ protons of total charge total $+2*Z$ again arranged in shells as a resolution of a packing problem (assuming a neutron contributes one proton and one electron). A nucleus is here held together by Coulomb potentials assuming that the negative kernel is not subject to internal repulsion, then without need of strong/weak nuclear force as a most remarkable feature. 

Deuterium consisting of one proton and one neutron would then switching signs correspond to an  $H^-$ ion consisting of one proton and two electrons. 

$4Helium$ consisting of two protons and two neutrons would then correspond to a $He2-$ ion. 

You are invited to test RealQM Nuclear Simulator to compute the energy of different ways of filling shells. You find some examples below if you hesitate to use the Simulator yourself. 

The shell model of the 1963 Nobel Prize is today complemented by the Standard Model where the protons and neutrons of a nucleus consist of triples of quarks.  Does that mean the shell model is obsolete or even worse incorrect? After all, it was considered to be (more or less) correct in 1963. Is there a shell model in the Standard Model?

Here are nuclear binding energie per nucleon computed by RealQM Nuclear Simulator:

• $Z=N=1$: 1 MeV (Deuterium)
• $Z=N=2$: 4 MeV  ($4Helium$)
• $Z=N=4$: 8 MeV

which roughly fits with observation. 

Elsa Widding Unique Voice of Logic in Swedish Parliament

Happy Swedish Defence Minister signing DCA giving Swedish territory to US military.

Elsa Widding is an admirable Swedish parlamentarian carrying a unique voice of agreement with Russia to stop the war in Ukraine, in a Swedish parliament filled with war enthusiasts. She opened a debate today with Swedish defence minister Pål Jonson on threat scenario to Swedish security with a reference to my blog post A Logical Analysis of Swedish Foreign Policy stating a contradiction:

1. The only way Sweden can win the war against Russia in Ukraine is to start WW3 in which Sweden will loose. 
2. In short: The only way for Sweden (or West) to win the war is to lose the war. 

Unfortunately Swedish defence minister Pål Jonson, along with the Parliament minus Elsa Widding, is incapable of logical reasoning and so continue to send more weapons to Ukraine with the stated objective of winning a conventional war against Russia, while knowing very well that this is impossible and so simply denying the lack of logic of 1-2. 

But lack of logic is catastrophical in both science and politics. One contradiction is enough to erase a whole system or civilisation. 

It is clear that Pål Jonson does not follow any logic beneficial to Swedish security. Whose logic is then Pål following? What is the real threat to Swedish security?

Why is Elsa Widding the only voice of rationality in the Swedish Parliament?

PS Key question for Pål to answer:

• Is the goal of Swedish participation in the Ukraine war to prevent Russia from reaching its goal of stopping expansion of NATO into Ukraine as a perceived existential threat?
• If so, how is this to be accomplished? 
• If not, what is the goal?

Chadwick: Neutron = Proton + Electron

Let me backtrack the idea explored in recent posts of neutron = proton + electron, with the electron as a negative point kernel surrounded by cloud of positive charge as a proton, as a small scale analog of a  Hydrogen atom as a proton as positive point charge surrounded by a a cloud of negative charge as electron with observed change of spatial scale of about $10^5$. 

The 1935 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to English physicist James Chadwick for the discovery in 1932 of the neutron, described by Chadwick in his Nobel Lecture as follows:

• The idea that there might exist small particles with no electrical charge has been put forward several times. 
• Nernst, for example, suggested that a neutral particle might be formed by a negative electron and an equal positive charge.
• The first suggestion of a neutral particle with the properties of the neutron we now know, was made by Rutherford in 1920. He thought that a proton and an electron might unite in a much more intimate way than they do in the hydrogen atom, and so form a particle of no net charge and with a mass nearly the same as that of the hydrogen atom. 
• On the other hand, a structure of this kind cannot be fitted into the scheme of the quantum mechanics, in which the hydrogen atom represents the only possible combination of a proton and an electron. 
• The first real step towards the discovery of the neutron was given by a very beautiful experiment of Mme. and M. Joliot-Curie.

We here find the idea of a neutron = proton + electron, however with the caveat that such a thing does not fit with quantum mechanics. Chadwick (1891-1974) thus had to wait to the emergence of the Standard Model in the 1960s with neutron = two down quarks + one top quark, glued together by gluons.  

But maybe the idea of neutron = proton + electron was dismissed too quickly. In any case, the binding energy of an electron kernel + surrounding proton cloud is about 0.8 MeV, to be compared with the binding energy of a Hydrogen atom as a proton kernel surrounded by an electron cloud of 13.6 eV, with a change of scale of about $0.5\times 10^5$ matching the change of spatial scale between proton and electron.  

It is possible that Chadwick would have been happy to see something like this, rather than the quark mystification of the Standard Model. What about you? 

Newtonian Gravitation Compatible with Real Quantum Mechanics

Real Quantum Mechanics + Newtonian Gravitation covers all scales. 

The two main theories of modern physics, standard Quantum Mechanics stdQM for small scale physics (less than $10^{-10}$ m) without gravitation, and the General Theory of Relativity GR for large scale gravitation (bigger than $10^{10}$ m), have been understood to be incompatible since their advent 100 years ago without any progress to compatibility into our days as expressed in particular in endless expert panel discussions. 

This means that there is no unified theory of physics for the wide range of scales from $10^{-10}$ to $10^{10}$ m containing most of the World of importance to humanity.  

Why are then stdQM and GR incompatible? How can two theories about a common reality be incompatible? Reality cannot be incompatible with itself.

GR is a deterministic continuum theory in 3d space plus time (even if combined into 4d space-time), while stdQM is a statistical theory in multi-d configuration space.  Unsuccessful attempts to create a unified theory have been made to change GR into a form of stdQM as quantum gravity, while no attempt to change stdQM into a deterministic continuum 3d model has been made. Modern physicists are stuck with two incompatible theories without any way to go forward to compatibility. No wonder that modern physics is in a state of crisis (witnessed by all leading expert panels). 

Real Quantum Mechanics RealQM offers an alternative to stdQM in the form of a deterministic continuum model in 3d space, which is perfectly compatible with Newton's Theory of Gravitation NR. 

Recent posts open RealQM to scales of atomic nuclei, and so Real QM + NR opens a possibility to cover all scales in a unified compatible model and so a possible way out of the crisis of modern physics.