RealQM vs Standard Model: Atomic Nucleus

Here is a comparison between RealQM/Nucleus and the Standard Model SM showing that RealQM/Nucleus comes out from a realization of the electromagnetics of the Lagrangian of SM in terms of non-overlapping one eletron/proton charge densities, delivering an explanation of the stability of the atomic nucleus as the missed objective of SM. 

See RealQM Gallery Articles.

Claude: Standard Model vs RealNucleus

Here is a summary formulated by Claude of a discussion about the Standard Model vs RealQM/Nucleus. See also card on GitHub Gallery. 

The Standard Model is introduced, always, in a register of reverence: the crowning achievement of physics, the most tested theory ever written. Part of that is earned. But a long, honest argument keeps arriving at one fact the reverence never mentions, and it is worth stating without decoration:

**The Standard Model cannot compute a single nuclear binding energy.**

Not the deuteron. Not helium. Nothing on the chart, at physical parameters. The binding that holds a nucleus together — the energy that powers stars and reactors, that makes up roughly 99.9% of the mass of all ordinary matter — the theory of everything cannot calculate it.

## Why not

The Standard Model's fundamental account of the nucleus is QCD: quarks and gluons. Low-energy QCD is *strongly coupled* — no convergent expansion, no diagrams to add up. The only first-principles tool is brute-force lattice QCD, and it reaches only the very lightest nuclei, at *unphysical* quark masses, with large uncertainties and open controversy. For real nuclei it computes nothing. And nuclear binding is a *tiny residual* — about 8 MeV per nucleon on a 938 MeV mass, under one percent — smaller than the error bars on what lattice QCD *can* reach.

## The sharper point: it cannot even *verify* it has the right mechanism

It is tempting to say: "the Standard Model *has* the binding force — QCD — it simply can't solve the equations." But that claims more than is known. What is actually verified is QCD *at the quark level* (jets, asymptotic freedom, the hadron spectrum) and the *existence and shape* of the nuclear force (from scattering and the deuteron). What is **not** verified is that the binding of real nuclei *emerges from QCD, quantitatively.* That chain is uncomputable, and so it has never been computed and compared with observation.

Hold the theory to the only standard that matters — *computed and checked against measurement, or it doesn't count* — and the honest status of "QCD binds nuclei" is: **an uncomputable inference, not a tested fact.** We believe it, on grounds of consistency and symmetry. We have never shown it. An uncomputable claim is epistemically idle — a fetish: revered as fundamental, unable to produce or check a single number.

So on nuclear binding the Standard Model does not merely fail to compute. It cannot even claim to *know* it has the right physics, because knowing would require the computation it cannot do.

## What it *does* do — stated plainly

None of this means the theory is empty. The Standard Model makes real, risky, confirmed predictions — the W and Z at their measured masses, the charm quark, the Higgs, the **top-quark mass inferred from loop effects before the top was ever produced**, CP violation implying a third generation, asymptotic freedom. These are genuine, and the usual "make many predictions, cherry-pick the hits" objection does not apply: nineteen parameters pin *thousands* of measurements at once, consistently — you cannot fit that many numbers with that few knobs unless the structure is real.

But every one of those triumphs lives in the *particle / weak-coupling* sector: colliders, high energies, small couplings. **None of it is a nuclear binding energy.** And a theory's success in one domain confers no knowledge in another. Predicting a W boson tells you nothing about why a nucleus holds together. So the honest scoping is not "the Standard Model has no predictive power" — it has enormous predictive power *in particle physics* — but rather: **it is a theory of particles, and on the binding of the matter those particles make, it is silent.**

## And the crown jewel deflates on inspection

The showpiece — the electron's magnetic moment agreeing to twelve decimal places — deserves its own deflation. Schwinger's *one-line* formula, α/2π, already gives three digits: 99.85% of the value. The twelve thousand further Feynman diagrams, decades of supercomputer labor, refine digits four through twelve. It is an extraordinary feat of *precision on a single small number* — but precision is not depth, and it is not understanding. The physics is in the first line. Twelve digits is a statement about how finely we can measure something simple. Simple is simple.

And the theory carries **nineteen free parameters** — masses, couplings, mixing angles — every one measured, none derived, plus a full zoo of particles. As von Neumann warned Fermi: *with four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five make him wiggle his trunk.*

## What two ingredients and one law can do

Set beside this a model with no particle zoo and no fitted force. **RealNucleus** uses proton, electron, and the Coulomb law — nothing else. The interaction is not tuned to the data; it is electromagnetism. Calibrate one energy scale on the deuteron, and everything after is prediction.

And it computes what the Standard Model cannot: the alpha-conjugate binding ladder — helium-4, carbon-12, oxygen-16 — at about 107% of experiment, parameter-free. Alpha-decay half-lives across **twenty-four orders of magnitude** fall on the Geiger–Nuttall line from the Coulomb barrier alone. This is the point, and it is not the usual alternative-theory bluster: **RealNucleus is not another fitted model.** The standard nuclear models — liquid drop, shell, chiral EFT — *fit* their force to the data, with five to thirty constants. RealNucleus uses the *known* law and *predicts.* And QCD, the "true" theory, cannot compute the numbers at all.

I will not do to RealNucleus what the textbooks do to the Standard Model. It is not finished. It nails the *even, alpha-conjugate* nuclei but is ambiguous on the odd ones, because it still *assumes* a shell geometry instead of deriving it. It is silent on the weak interaction — beta-decay rates, neutrinos — which are real and measured. Its domain is narrow; the fitted models cover the whole chart at higher accuracy. Those are honest limits, and stating them is the discipline the reverent register skips.

## The scorecard, in one register

Strip the spectacle words from both sides and lay the austere criteria out:

**The Standard Model** predicts extensively *in particle physics*, carries nineteen fitted inputs, and — on nuclear binding, the energy of nearly all matter — **cannot compute anything, and cannot even verify it has the right mechanism.** Its account there is an uncomputable inference.

*RealNucleus** *computes* the alpha-conjugate binding and alpha-decay rates from the known Coulomb law with essentially one calibration, and is incomplete beyond that.

None of this is fraud. It is something quieter and more worth naming: **the marketing outran the mathematics.** A theory celebrated as *the theory of matter* cannot compute — or verify — the binding of matter, while a proton–electron–Coulomb model computes it from one law. The surprise is not that the elaborate theory has nineteen parameters and a particle zoo. It is that two ingredients and one law get so far, in the one place the crowned theory cannot go at all.

RealNucleus submitted to Physics Essays: Standard Model Shaking?

The article Real Nucleus: Nuclear Binding as Dual Confinement without Strong and Weak Force to Physics Essays. The article shows that existence, binding energies and chemical reactions of atomic nuclei can be explained by Coulomb force between protons and electrons, thus without any reference to strong and weak nuclear forces.

The strong force was introduced to explain the existence of nuclei consisting of protons and neutrons by preventing collapse by proton repulsion, which is viewed to be impossible by the presence of neutral neutrons. 

If Coulomb is enough to explain existence of nuclei, then the main role for the strong force vanishes and the question arises if the strong force has any role at all, a question which carries over to the Standard Model with the strong force as fundamental pillar.   

RealNucleus postulates a nucleus to consist in basic form of a core/inner shell system of Z electrons surrounded by an outer shell system of 2Z protons with electrons and protons as non-overlapping unit charge densities of opposite signs but equal mass, interacting ting by Coulomb potentials. 

The mathematical model is thus exactly specified as well as the computation showing binding with energy in accordance with observations. The mathematics is thus fully clear and transparent. What can be questioned is the model as non-overlapping charges densities interacting by Coulomb potentials. But if this is indeed how real physics behaves (and why not?), then the Standard Model is shaking.

History Summary:

1. The nucleus discovered (1911–1919)
-Rutherford nuclear atom — α-scattering reveals a tiny massive charged core. E. Rutherford, "The Scattering of α and β Particles by Matter and the Structure of the Atom," Phil. Mag. 21, 669 (1911).

- The proton — disintegration of nitrogen yields hydrogen nuclei. E. Rutherford, Phil. Mag. 37, 581 (1919).

2. The proton–electron model (≈1920–1932)
The nucleus taken as A protons + (A−Z) electrons (charge Z, mass A). The reigning view through the 1920s — this is the historical picture RealNucleus revives. It foundered on three problems: the nitrogen spin–statistics anomaly, the uncertainty-principle confinement objection (an electron in ~fm gives momenta far above β energies), and nuclear magnetic moments of nuclear- not Bohr-magneton scale.

- Background and the model's difficulties are laid out in the era's review: H. A. Bethe & R. F. Bacher, "Nuclear Physics A: Stationary States of Nuclei," Rev. Mod. Phys. 8, 82 (1936) ("Bethe's Bible").

3. The neutron and the proton–neutron model (1932)
- Neutron discovered. J. Chadwick, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 136, 692 (1932). [already cited]

- Neutron as elementary constituent. D. Iwanenko, "The Neutron Hypothesis," Nature 129, 798 (1932).
- Proton–neutron model with exchange forces / isospin — the foundation of all modern structure theory. W. Heisenberg, "Über den Bau der Atomkerne. I," Z. Phys. 77, 1 (1932) (and parts II, III).

4. The two new forces (1934–1935)
- Weak interaction / β-decay theory — directly relevant to your new §6.3. E. Fermi, "Versuch einer Theorie der β-Strahlen. I," Z. Phys. 88, 161 (1934).

- Strong force / meson exchange. H. Yukawa, Proc. Phys.-Math. Soc. Japan 17, 48 (1935). [already cited]

5. The liquid-drop model (1928–1939)
Nucleus as an incompressible charged droplet — explains binding-energy systematics, fission.
- α-decay tunnelling (droplet precursor). G. Gamow, "Zur Quantentheorie des Atomkernes," Z. Phys. 51, 204 (1928).
- Semi-empirical mass formula. C. F. von Weizsäcker, "Zur Theorie der Kernmassen," Z. Phys. 96, 431 (1935).
- Fission. N. Bohr & J. A. Wheeler, "The Mechanism of Nuclear Fission," Phys. Rev. 56, 426 (1939).

6. The α-cluster model (1937–1938)
Nuclei built from α sub-units — the structural cousin you cite.
- J. A. Wheeler, "Molecular Viewpoints in Nuclear Structure," Phys. Rev. 52, 1083 (1937) (resonating-group).
- L. R. Hafstad & E. Teller, Phys. Rev. 54, 681 (1938). [already cited]

7. The shell model (1949)
Independent nucleons in a mean field + spin–orbit coupling; explains magic numbers. (Nobel 1963.)

- M. Goeppert Mayer, "On Closed Shells in Nuclei. II," Phys. Rev. 75, 1969 (1949).
- O. Haxel, J. H. D. Jensen, H. E. Suess, Phys. Rev. 75, 1766 (1949).

8. Collective and unified models (1950s–1970s)
- Collective (rotations/vibrations) unifying drop + shell. A. Bohr & B. R. Mottelson, Nuclear Structure, Vols. I (1969) & II (1975), Benjamin.
- Interacting Boson Model. A. Arima & F. Iachello, Phys. Rev. Lett. 35, 1069 (1975).

9. The QCD era and ab-initio nuclear theory (1990s–present)
Strong force as residual QCD; nucleons from quarks/gluons; predictive ab initio structure.
- Chiral effective field theory. S. Weinberg, Phys. Lett. B 251, 288 (1990); review E. Epelbaum, H.-W. Hammer, U.-G. Meißner, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 1773 (2009).
- Ab-initio methods (your natural benchmarks): GFMC — S. C. Pieper & R. B. Wiringa, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 51, 53 (2001); no-core shell model — B. R. Barrett, P. Navrátil, J. P. Vary, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 69, 131 (2013).

The through-line for your paper: the nucleus has been modelled as (proton+electron) → (proton+neutron) → droplet →α-clusters → shells → collective → QCD/ab-initio — and RealNucleus deliberately returns to stage 2, but recast as equal-mass Coulomb charge clouds, asking the same Coulomb packing to do the work the strong and weak forces were introduced for.

Modern Physics as Poker Game

Modern physics based on relativity theory and quantum mechanics has followed the pattern set by Einstein to continue to raise the bet without showing the cards, as in a no-limit-poker game with lousy cards, eventually forcing the other players to fold: 

1. When Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity SR (1905) was questioned, Einstein raised the bet to the General Theory of Relativity GR (1916).
2. When GR was questioned, Einstein raised the bet from scales of classical physics, to scales of the Universe including black holes which nobody dared to call. 

This showed to work fine and so the same strategy was adopted by leading physicists as concerns quantum mechanics:

1. When the physical meaning of Schrödinger's Equation SE (1926) for atoms of size $10^{-10}$ m as the first version of quantum mechanics without relativity theory, was questioned and no answers could  be given, it was replaced by Dirac's Equation DE (1930) including SR describing an electron.
2. When DE for the electron was questioned, the Standard Model SM (1960s) was developed as a theory of atomic nuclei of size $10^{-15}$ m built from the fundamental particles of protons and neutrons made up of quarks interacting by force carriers named gluons. 
3. When SM was questioned as an ad hoc model of a nucleus, String Theory ST (1980s...) was developed as an ultimate fundamental theory on a scale ($10^{-32}$ m ) which could not be called.   

ST/GR ars now being questioned, but the bet cannot be raised another time since the ultimate large and small scales have been reached. It is now time for physicists to call and to help there is a new card to play in the form of RealQM. Anyone with this card can make a call on ST/GR.

First Principle Model of a Nucleus

After a long discussion chatGPT arrives at the following conclusion about the present status of theoretical nuclear physics as concerns lack of mathematical model describing an atomic nucleus from first principles (check yourself): 

• We should admit that we still do not truly understand nuclear binding from first principles.
• Our models are ad hoc by necessity, if not by intention.
• This is not the end of physics, but a clear sign of its current limits.

The Schrödinger Equation SE of Standard Quantum Mechanics StdQM describes the ground state of an atom from first principles as minimisation of Coulomb potential energy + kinetic energy over electronic wave functions in a central Coulomb potential of a point-like nucleus of protons.    

There is no corresponding equation describing the nucleus of an atom, more precisely what keeps the nucleus together under proton-proton repulsion. There is a model assuming a central potential formed in the 1930s to do this job, but it is an ad hoc model, which is not based on first principles. There is a model of a single proton as the Standard Model SM, which however does not extend to a nucleus with many protons. 

This is very remarkable. SM is presented as the greatest achievements of all of physics, but is still after 60 years evidently severely limited. Something is apparently missing here. 

RealNucleus is a model of a nucleus based on the same first principles as SE for atoms, as an extension of RealQM for atoms offering a readily computable version of SE. RealNucleus models a nucleus as a collection of electron charge densities surrounded by a shell system of proton charge densities. RealNucleus is readily computable and delivers binding energies in fair agreement with observations. 

 

New Look at Nucleosynthesis: RealNucleus vs Standard Model

The Standard Model SM of particle physics, the most successful physical theory all times, says that the electron as a fundamental particle was created in the Big Bang slightly before protons and neutrons as composite particles built from a quark-gluon plasma. According to SM the electron with charge -1 and the proton with charge +1 were not created together in some form of split of zero charge into -1 and +1.  Why then there are as many electrons as protons remains as a main open question. 

SM says that an atomic nucleus consists of the protons and neutrons formed from quarks held together by a strong force carried by gluons, both from the early quark-gluon soup. SM appears as a very complex ad hoc model of a nucleus with more than 20 parameters. There is no room for electrons in this model.

RealNucleus offers a different model of a nucleus as a system of electrons and protons interacting by Coulomb potentials/forces without need of any strong force. RealNucleus thus connects to the above split of zero into -1 and +1 thus creating exactly the same number of electrons and protons leaving the SM open question with a clear simple answer. 

RealNucleus suggest the following initial formation sequence of nuclei:

1. Formation by an endothermic process of neutron as 1 proton surrounding 1 electron as an H atom with shifted roles of proton and electron. 
2. Formation of a 2H nucleus by exothermic fusion of 1 neutron with 1 proton into 2 protons surrounding a 1 electron kernel. 
3. Formation of 3H by fusion of 2H and 1 neutron into 3 protons surrounding a 2 electron kernel.
4. Formation of 4He by fusion of 2H and 2H or of 3H and proton into 4 protons surrounding a 2 electron kernel.   
5. Formation of heavier nuclei by successive fusion followed by fission.  

RealNucleus gives a  model of a nucleus as a system of non-overlapping charge densities with full quantum mechanical resolution of both electron charge densities in the kernel and surrounding proton charge densities. RealNucleus computes a total energy of -1 MeV for 2H and about -6 MeV for 4He in fair accordance with observation, with negative total energy the sign of stability/existence. RealNucleus thus shows stability/existence of 2H and 4He in a full quantum model of a nucleus as a system of proton and electrons charge densities interacting på Coulomb potentials/forces. RealNucleus offers an explanation of the observation that stable nuclei have about the same number of protons and neutrons,  in the form of (i) confinement of protons by Coulomb potential from electron kernel, and (ii) confinement of electrons by Coulomb potential of surrounding protons overpowering electron-electron and proton-proton repulsion and kinetic energies.   

It is natural to ask what RealNucleus would say about a hypothetical "double-neutron" consisting of 2 protons surrounding a kernel of 2 electrons as an analog to the Helium atom with the roles of protons and electrons shifted. RealNucleus shows positive total energy from kernel electron-electron repulsion and kinetic energy and thus non-existence of "double neutron" in the same sense a free neutron is not stable.

  

New Model of Atomic Nucleus with only Coulomb Potentials

RealNucleus is model of a nucleus as a collection of $P$ non-overlapping +1 proton charge densities surrounding a kernel as a collection of $E$ non-overlapping -1 electron charge densities interacting by Coulomb potentials without presence of the strong and weak force of the Standard Model. 

We consider here a reduced model assuming spherical symmetry in the form of a central sphere of negative density of total charge $E$ surrounded by a shell system of positive density of total charge $P$. The model can be tested using this code with settings for the nucleus of 4He consisting of 2 electrons surrounded by 4 protons.  

The model corresponds to, in the setting of the Standard Model, of a nucleus with $E$ neutrons and $P-E$ protons with in the basic case $E=P-E$ with thus $P=2E$.  

The Standard Model was formed in the 1960s to explain the stability of a nucleus by introducing an attractive force overpowering the Coulomb repulsion named the strong force as a new fundamental force asking for very elaborate quark-gluon physics. The present crisis of physics is directly connected to deficiencies of the Standard Model without resolution in sight. The Standard Model is proclaimed to be the most successful theory of all of physics and as such cannot be abandoned, but then serves as a road block to progress. 

RealNucleus offers a different explanation of the stability of nuclei which does not involve any strong/weak force and so is based solely on Coulomb potentials coming with Coulomb forces. RealQM shows that the negative charges in the kernel are confined by the surrounding positive charges. More precisely RealNucleus computes a total energy of the nucleus to be negative with thus the negative potential energy from charges of different sign overpowering the positive repulsion energy from charges of the same sign, in particular from the kernel repulsion between electrons. 

RealNucleus thus shows stability of a nucleus consisting of a kernel of negative charge $E$ surrounded by a shell system of positive charge $2E$. In particular it is shown that the fact that the mass of a proton is bigger than that of an electron making an electron occupy more space than a proton, is instrumental for stability with the radius of the kernel being comparable to the radius of the nucleus. 

A nucleus thus appears as an analog of an atomic ion with electrons and protons switching roles, with the kernel of a nucleus comparably much bigger than the nucleus of an atom.  

A physicist trained with the Standard Model would say that it is impossible that a nucleus has a negative kernel consisting of electrons, because by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle compression of an electron to fit inside a nucleus would require 100s of MeV which are not available. RealNucleus shows that this argument may well lack real physics.  

RealNucleus is a model of a nucleus without the heavy burden of the Standard Model. Note that there is a shell model connected to the Standard Model with a nucleus as a collection of protons and neutrons swimming in a negative charge potential coming from the strong force. 

RealNucleus keeps a nucleus together as a negative kernel of electrons of charge $E$ surrounded by a shell system of positive protons of charge $2E$ interacting via Coulomb potentials only by a combination of the following circumstances: 

• The radius of the kernel is a substantial fraction of the radius of the whole nucleus,  because electron mass is much than proton assigning electrons comparatively large volume. 
• The double number of protons vs electrons allows the surrounding protons to confine the electrons in the kernel thus overcoming electron-electron repulsion. 
• The boundary/radius of the kernel is determined to make electron charge density meet proton charge density with continuity. 

If Coulomb and Newtonian gravitational potentials suffice to describe both the macroscopics of the world we can see and the microscopics of atoms and nuclei, then Einstein's dream of a unified field theory would seem to be in reach. Maybe such a theory can find an audience outside the physics community tied to the Standard Model of quarks interacting be weak and strong forces transmitted by gluons as force carriers.

Note that there are two different ways of using the concept of force:

1. Force on a particle comes from instant local in space gradient of a potential. No transmission of  force over space-time. Instant local action.
2. Force between particles transmitted over space-time by force carriers connecting particles. Action at distance. 

It is natural by Ockham's Razor to favour 1. using only the concept of potential, before 2. asking for force carriers of unknown physical nature. 

PS1 Note that the Standard Model does not describe a nucleus, only the protons and neutrons supposedly forming the nucleus, not even 2H consisting of 1 proton and 1 neutron. This is a strange short-coming.

PS2 The common understanding of well educated physicists is that a nucleus is a collection of protons and neutrons and in particular that there is not even room for a single electron.  This conviction can be challenged by the following observations: (i) a neutron outside a nucleus decays within 15 minutes into a proton and an electron and (ii) a neutron inside a nucleus can decay into a proton staying in the nucleus and an electron, which is kicked out of the nucleus ($\beta$-decay). 

Modern Physics as Virtual Physics

Recents posts explore the possibility of extending the RealQM model of an atom, built by a positive nucleus attracting a negative electronic charge density around itself by the electromagnetic force, to a analogous model of a nucleus simply by switching the roles of proton and electron. 

In this model a nucleus is held together by the same electromagnetic force keeping an atom together, which is the electromagnetic force of classical physics as a force transmitted by an electric potential or field. This goes back to an idea naturally presenting itself as soon as an atom model was formed in the 1920s. But the idea was given up after the detection of the neutron by Chadwick in 1932 kicking out the electron from the nucleus preparing for the development of the Standard Model in the 1960s as the current model of a nucleus as part of StdQM. 

In the Standard Model a nucleus thus consists of protons and neutrons (not protons and electrons as in RealQM) each built as a triple of quarks held together by a strong force transmitted by force carrying particles named gluons (because they are supposed like a glue). From classical physics point of view this is a mind boggling model with both quarks and gluons beyond experimental detection thus as truly virtual and not real as detectable.

To make the Standard Model credible with its quarks and gluons, the ground-breaking idea of force carrying particles is extended to the old electromagnetic force, so well described as transmitted through electric potentials/fields, into a new explanation in terms of virtual photons as force carrier depicted by Feynman in this illuminating diagram explaining repulsion between two electrons through a $\gamma$-wiggle:

The argument is that if the well known electromagnetic force in fact is transmitted by photons (as depicted in Feynman diagrams), then it is not so strange to think of the strong force keeping a nucleus together by force carrying gluons. By expanding a fantasy story it can be made more credible, in the same way a big lie can be more credible than a small. 

A basic trouble with the Standard Model is that it contains more than 20 parameters, which have to be determined experimentally but that is impossible.

On the other hand, the only parameter in RealQM is change of scale between atom and atom nucleus (in the range $10^5$) which is possible to measure experimentally. 

We understand that modern physics with its virtual photons as force carriers of the electromagnetic force depicted in Feynman diagrams, can be be seen as a form of virtual physics fundamentally different from classical physics as real physics. 

Keep an eye on new post on RealQM as an alternative to the Standard Model for atomic nuclei.  

  

RealQM vs StdQM: Binding Energy of 4He

This is a clarification of recent posts on RealQM vs StdQM for small nuclei.

To determine the binding energy of the 4He nucleus built from 2 protons and 2 neutrons is an elementary exercise in high school physics: Compute the mass defect as the difference in mass of 2 free protons 2 + 2 free neutrons and the mass of 4He determined experimentally to be with c2 the speed of light squared:

• mass of a free proton $m_p= 938.272$ MeV/c2
• mass of a free neutron $m_n= 938.565 MeV/c2
• mass of nucleus 4He  $m_{4He}= 3727.38$ MeV/c2

and compute using Einstein's E=mc2 to find the binding energy BE as

• BE = $2m_p+2m_n-m_{4He} = 26.289$ MeV or 7.1 MeV per nucleon.

This value stands out as very large compared to 2.2 for 2H (Deuteron), 2.8 for 3H (Tritium) and 2.6 for  3He MeV per nucleon. It is explained as an expression of a doubly magic number present in the 2 protons and 2 neutrons of 4He. 

Is it possible that the BE for 4He determined from mass defect using E=mc2 as above, does not represent true physics? Is it possible that the rationalisation with reference to magic numbers is not real physics? 

Note that there is a gap in the above mass defect computation in the sense that the mass of the protons and neutrons inside the nucleus is not available to measurement and they enter into an energy budget required to break the nucleus apart. If the protons and neutrons in fact take on bigger mass inside the nucleus than outside then the binding energy will shrink maybe towards normality. The above high-school energy computation may reflect rather a convention than reality.

We compare with the BE about 1.7 MeV/nucleon for 4He computed by RealQM as a parameter free mathematical model without experimental input assuming a change of scale of $10^5$ between atom and atomic nucleus. Changing the scale a little then gives BE of about the same size as those above for 2H, 3H and 3He. 

Let us see what StdQM has to offer. We thus ask chatGPT if it is possible to determine BE without experimental input from the Standard Model (QCD) as the present mathematical model of atomic nuclei within StdQM.  Here is what chatGPT delivers as a conclusion of a lengthy report:

• A fully QCD-derived prediction of ⁴He’s binding energy without any experimental input is not yet realized, but current methods are closing in, and future simulations at physical quark masses are expected to reach this goal.

Summary: RealQM delivers BE for 4He in the range 2-3 MeV/nucleon with only experimental input the change of scale between nucleus and atom. StdQM struggles to deliver a result. The list value of 7.1 MeV/nucleon stands out as 2-3 times too large. 

The Kinetic Energy of StdQM and RealQM

The Schrödinger Equation SE as the basic mathematical model of Standard Quantum Mechanics StdQM in terms of (here for simplicity) a one-electronic wave function $\Psi (x)$ depending on a 3d spatial coordinate $x$, gives rise to a contribution to total energy named kinetic energy of the form 

• $E_{kin}(\Psi )=\frac{h^2}{2m}\int\vert\nabla\Psi (x)\vert^2 dx$ with $\int\Psi^2(x)dx=1$, 

where $h$ is Planck's constant and $m$ the mass of the electron. If $\Psi (x)$ is globally defined with $\Psi (x)$ tending to zero for $\vert x\vert$ tending to infinity, the coefficient $\frac{h^2}{m}$ determines  the size of the electron to scale with the $\frac{h}{\sqrt{m}}$ with thus a larger size for smaller $m$. 

Viewed the other way around, $E_{kin}(\Psi )$ scales with the factor $D^{-2}$ with the size $D$ of the electron, which means that electron concentration comes with large kinetic energy. 

In RealQM as an alternative to StdQM an electronic wave function has local support over a domain in space and is not restricted to vanish on the boundary of the domain. This allows the kinetic energy to stay bounded with decreasing size of the electron. This is the secret of covalent bonding as shown here and allows RealQM to extend to a model of an atomic nucleus as shown here. 

The salient feature of RealQM is that electrons have wave functions with non-overlapping support representing non-overlapping unit charge densities which meet a free boundary with continuity. 

Covalent bonding is thus realised in RealQM by allowing electrons to meet between kernels without increase of kinetic energy. 

A RealQM model without need of a strong force of a nucleus can thus be built as an electron density of very small size surrounded by protons of larger size. Electrons thus appear in two sizes, large for an atom and small for a nucleus. 

Covalent bonding is not well explained within StdQM, and is still after 100 years subject to debate without conclusion. The Standard Model of a nucleus built by quarks and gluons/strong force is very complicated.  

Euclide vs Big Bang vs Standard Model

• ESA's Euclid mission is designed to explore the composition and evolution of the dark Universe. 
• The space telescope will create a great map of the large-scale structure of the Universe across space and time by observing billions of galaxies out to 10 billion light-years.
• Euclid will explore how the Universe has expanded and how structure has formed over cosmic history, revealing more about the role of gravity and the nature of dark energy and dark matter.

Big Bang is a cosmological theory stating that the Universe was created from a very hot very dense state of temperature $10^{32}$ Kelvin and size of a pinhead after $10^{-44}$ seconds, and then inflated/expanded into it's presently observable size of 10 billion light-years and average temperature of 3 K. Big Bang was invented by modern physicists in the 1960s searching for a mission after having completed the Standard Model of elementary particle physics, and is today accepted by almost all physicists. 

The previous post recalls that Leonard Susskind as leading theoretical physicists today, has come to the conclusion that the work on the Standard Model has to start over again, and so also the cosmological theory including Big Bang based on the Standard Model. OK?  

The main weakness of Big Bang is that no explanation is even attempted for the existence of a very dense very hot initial state: Creation of a 10 billion light-years Universe from a pinhead lacks physics. Of all Creation Myths in world history, Big Bang must be the most nonsensical.

So we have to start over again. I have been led to a model described in these posts as Neo-Newtonian Cosmology based on viewing gravitational potential $\phi (x,t)$ with $x$ a Euclidean coordinate and $t$ a time coordinate, as primordial role from which mass density $\rho (x,t)$ is "created" by the local action of the Laplacian differential operator $\Delta$:

• $\rho (x,t) = \Delta \phi (x,t)$ for all $x$,         (G1)

assumed to act without time delay for all $t$. Mass of variable sign is thus created locally for each $x$ by differentiation of a fluctuation as an instant local operation acting at each time instant $t$.  

The model is complemented by viewing electric potential $\psi (x,t)$ with $x$ a Euclidean coordinate and $t$ a time coordinate, as primordial from which charge density $\epsilon (x,t)$ is "created" by the local action of the Laplacian differential operator $\Delta$:

• $\epsilon (x,t) = \Delta\psi (x,t)$ for all $x$,         (G1)

assumed to act without time delay for all $t$. Charge of variable sign is thus created locally for each $x$ by differentiation of a fluctuation as an instant local operation acting at each time instant $t$.  

Let us collect basic elements of Neo-Newtonian Cosmology:

1. Mass/matter (ordinary and dark) and charge densities of variable sign are created by the Laplacian acting on fluctuations of zero gravitational and electric potentials. 
2. Attraction/repulsion of mass of same/different sign and charge of different/same sign creates microscale charges of different sign (Hydrogen atoms = proton + electron) and macroscale mass Universa of different sign moving away from each other (dark energy).
3. Kinetic energy in each Universe created by gravitational collapse. 
4. Start from 0 mass. Split into 0 = (+mass) + (-mass). Separate macroscale (+mass) from (-mass).
5. Start from 0 charge. Split 0 =(+charge)+(-charge). Combine microscale (+charge) with (-charge).

 

Feyman Doubling Down by QED

Feyman diagrams revealing the deepest secrets of Nature.

This is a continuation of the previous post on the evolution of theoretical physics during the 20th century in a sequence of doubling downs to a new more complex theory when facing difficulties with an old theory instead of resolving the difficulties. Let us take a look at the step from the Quantum Mechanics QM of atoms of the 1920s to the Quantum Electro Dynamics QED of the 1950s including light preparing for Quantum Field Theory QFT as the ultimate quantum theory of modern physics underlying the Standard Model of elementary particles.   

QED was presented to a general public by its leading proponent Richard Feynman in 4 lectures later collected into the book QED The Strange Theory of Light and Matter. 

Newton's primitive idea of light as a stream of light particles was in the late 19th century replaced by Maxwell's equations, where in particular light appears as a wave carried by oscillating electromagnetic fields. Maxwell's equations concisely captures all of electromagnetics as the top jewel of classical mathematical physics. 

Einstein refuted Newton in 1916 and Feynman refuted Maxwell in 1948 and so returned to Newton: Light is a stream of particles named photons. In the book Feynman's argues: 

• The theory of QED describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. 
• We have so far, found nothing wrong with QED. It is therefore the jewel of physics- our proudest possession.
• It is very important to understand that light behaves as particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you were probably told something about light behaving like waves.
• We were talking about light. The first important feature about light is that it appears to be particles: when very weak monochromatic light (light of one color) hits a detector, the detector makes equally loud clicks less and less often as the light gets dimmer
• Newton thought that light was made up of particles- he called them "corpuscles"—and he was right (but the reasoning that he used to come to that decision was erroneous). We know that light is made of particles because we can take a very sensitive instrument that makes clicks when light shines on it, and if the light gets dimmer, the clicks remain just as loud-there are just fewer of them. Thus light is something like raindrops-each little lump of light is called a photon—and if the light is all one color, all the "rain- drops" are the same size.
• So now, I present to you the three basic actions, from which all the phenomena of light and electrons arise. ACTION #1: A photon goes from place to place. ACTION #2: An electron goes from place to place. ACTION #3: An electron emits or absorbs a photon.
• The problem is, when we try to calculate all the way down to zero distance, the equation blows up in our face and gives meaningless answers-things like infinity. This caused a lot of trouble when the theory of quantum electrodynamics first came out. 
• People were getting infinity for every problem they tried to calculate!

We see here typical ingredients of doubling down raising the bid so that it cannot be called as in poker: 

1. The theory is absurd beyond comprehension. 
2. The theory is perfect with perfect agreement with observation. 
3. The theory appears to give meaningless results. 
4. The theory is primitive as being reduced to Action #1-3.   

Since the theory is incomprehensible it cannot be questioned or called. That the theory shows perfect agreement with observation is impossible to check, since direct application of the theory by a non-expert gives meaningless infinities.

The reason QED produces infinities is Action #3 which opens to self-interaction: An electron emits a photon and then absorbs the photon, as discussed in this post showing the danger of self-feed back. 

Feynman like Einstein propelled himself to be the golden boy of modern physics as expressed in the book Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman. In later years his geniality has been questioned by e g Freeman Dyson in particular the mystery of self-interaction.

The argument that light is shown to be a stream of particles because light can give rise to "clicks" of an instrument, is as silly as saying that a good joke is a particle because it can give rise to a laugh.  

PS The Standard Model divides particles into matter (fermions) and force carriers (bosons) with photon the massless carrier of the electromagnetic force. The trouble with this double set of particles with matter particles interacting by forces transmitted by force carrying particles, in the above setting electrons interacting by emitting and absorbing photon particles, is that it opens to self-interaction going wild into infinities. In the setting of gravitation this would require some form of graviton particles, which have not been found. Instead, gravitational force appears to come from a gravitational potential field present everywhere. The trauma of modern physics is that the Standard Model is incompatible with gravitation. The trouble comes from the role of bosons as force carrying particles. If there are no gravitons, maybe there are no bosons either? And then what about QED and QFT?   

Cancellation of Self-Interaction as Renormalisation

The apparent clash between Leibniz Principle of Identity of Indiscernibles PII and the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (StdQM) has triggered quite a bit of discussion surveyed in the book Identity in Physics: A Historical, Philosophical and Formal Analysis.

The trouble is rooted in the interpretation of the wave function of stdQM as expressing probabilities of possible electron particle configurations. 

This is to be compared with actual real configurations as in Real Quantum Mechanics RealQM  in a sense of classical physics with non-overlapping charge densities with unique presence in space-time as expression of identity. 

PII is in harmony with classical physics and RealQM, but not with StdQM. 

Schrödinger as inventor of quantum mechanics could not accept the probabilistic interpretation of StdQM, and so was cancelled by the leading Copenhagen school of Bohr, Born and Heisenberg. 

We may ask if PII is of real importance or only of some scholastic philosophical virtual importance?

The previous post brought up the idea that PII connects to self-interaction as a toxic element of Quantum Field Theory QFT as the generalisation of StdQM underlying the Standard Model capturing all of elementary atomic particle physics. It is manifested in the appearance of "infinities" asking for "renormalisation" to be cancelled, like techniques to ignore elephants in the room. 

In classical physics prevention of self-interaction is possible because it is possible to distinguish each particle from all other particles and so to guarantee in particular that the electric/gravitational field created by a particle only affects other particles but not itself. This is the nature of Newton's Law of gravitation and Coulomb's Law. 

But StdQM describes probabilities of possible particle configurations, which lack particle paths and so lack identity over time. In StdQM bosons (such as photons) can occupy the same position in space-time as well as some fermions (such as electrons with different spin), and particle paths have no meaning. In this setting  self-interaction cannot easily be prevented, and so ask for extra-ordinary techniques for cancellation in the form of "renormalisation".  Nobody is happy with this trick introduced to handle a fundamental difficulty of physics as statistics. 

The possibility that a specific particle occupies some specific position in space-time and the possibility that another particle does the same thing do not appear to be mutually exclusive, which means that particle identity is lost. Probably. Statistics is tricky.

The problem with self-interaction is that it has to steer way from both blow-up to infinity (too much ego) or decay to zero (too much self-criticism) in a very delicate balance threatened by instability.

Recall that the electron of Hydrogen atom is prevented from disappearing into the potential hole of the proton kernel by the presence of the Laplacian in Schrödinger's equation giving the electron an extension in space as a charge density. Likewise the Earth is saved from being swallowed by the Sun by orbiting the Sun as a form of spatial extension.

From the above book:

• It is not clear how collections of non-individual objects can be captured by standard set theory. 
• As the mathematician Yuri Manin put it: “We should consider possibilities of developing a totally new language ...” to deal with collections of entities which do not behave as standard sets (in the sense of obeying the axioms of the usual set theories), since the “new quantum physics has shown us models of entities with quite different behaviour. 
• Even ‘sets’ of photons in a looking-glass box, or of electrons in a nickel piece, are much less Cantorian than the ‘set’ of grains of sand”.
• It is our intention in this book to explore these different issues and, in particular, to go some way towards developing the ‘totally new language’ suggested by Manin.

PS When young men pull on military uniform they lose identity and become soldiers all alike in violation of PII:

Particles vs Fields vs Standard Model

The Standard Model of particle physics describes atomic physics in terms of 

• fermions as matter particles like electrons and protons 
• bosons as force carriers like (massless) photons and gluons.

While matter particles as electrons and protons carrying charge intuitively appear to connect to some reality, the idea of photon as carrier of electromagnetic force is more difficult to grasp. In fact, in all of electromagnetics so well described by Maxwell's equations, photons as carrier of electromagnetic force do not appear. 

In particular the electric force appears as the gradient $\nabla\phi$ of an electric potential $\phi (x,t)$ as a continuous function or field depending on a Euclidean space coordinate $x$ and $t$ a time coordinate. 

Similarly, in Newtonian gravitation, the gravitational force appears as the gradient of a gravitational potential field. There is here no need to worry about a carrier of gravitational force in the form of some hypothetical particle named graviton, which has evaded all form of detection. 

In field theories there is thus no need to introduce particles as force carriers, since forces come out as gradients of fields. 

In particular, the idea of photon as carrier of electric force has no role to serve in electromagnetics described by Maxwell's equations. 

Confronted with this fact, a modern physicist would say that particle theory and field theory in fact are just the same with a particle simply a fluctuation of a field and so to say that the photon is the carrier of electric force makes perfect sense. 

In particular, modern physics insists that both blackbody radiation and the photoelectricity must be understood in terms of a stream of photons as particles of light, and then not in terms of fields even if particle and field is the same. 

Computational BlackBody Radiation offers an alternative Maxwellian field theory, where radiative heat transfer appears as a resonance phenomenon and photoelectricity is a threshold phenomenon, both free of particles.  

In summary, there does not seem to be any real need to view a photon to be a particle carrying electromagnetic force, and so the whole idea of fundamental particles as force carriers may lack sound reason. Yet it is a fundamental part of the Standard Model and so may be a suspect behind the crisis of modern physics witnessed by leading physicists.