Nuclear Physics may be fairly Simple

Nuclear Physics may be FairlySimple

Atomic Nuclei May Not Contain Neutrons orNeutrinos

Only LOOSE Protons and Electrons may exist insideAtomic Nuclei

Simple math seems to deny that atomic Neutrons could exist insideatomic nuclei. The highly respected NIST database on atomic isotopes does not account for the mathematics of the necessary Neutron Self-Binding Energy, which is required to bind the protonand electron of every neutron together. For every neutron, that involves a significant amount of energy (0.78235 MeV) (more than one and a half times an electron's existence of 0.511 MeV each). That substantial amount of energy cannot simply appear and disappear a hundred million times every second inside every atomic nucleus due to the Conservation of Energy Law. If the Neutron Self-Binding Energy is (somehow) (mathematically) eliminated (inside every atomic nucleus), the NIST data for thousands of nuclear processes are incredibly precise, usually tobetter than ten-digit precision. Some examples of various nuclearprocesses are shown and calculated below. This math then implies that neutrons do not fuse together in atomic nuclei and thereforethen implies that only (stable) (separate) Protons and Electrons may exist inside any atomic nucleus.

Here is an example of how the traditional nuclear Rest-Mass addition math is incredibly complex: We analyze here a very simple nuclear process, a Tritium Beta Decay. Below, we will showthat the same excellent math is true for examples of dozens of other types of nuclear processes.

Start with a Tritium atom End with an Helium-3 atomP N N in nucleus P P N in nucleus

(1.007 276 466 879 AMU +1.008 664 915 88 AMU +

1.008 664 915 88 AMU) or a total of3.024 606 298 639 AMU

(1.007 276 466 879 AMU +1.007 276 466 879 AMU +

1.008 664 915 88 AMU or a total of3.023 217 849 638 AMU

two electrons are inside thoseneutrons and two Neutron Self-

Binding Energy (0.00083946 AMU +0.00083946 AMU) or

0.001 678 92 AMU

one electron is inside that neutronand one Neutron Self-Binding Energy

or

0.000 839 46 AMU

One electron is orbiting0.000 548 579 909 070 AMU

This all totals up to3.026 833 798 548 AMU.

But that is wrong according to NISTfor Tritium!

Two electrons are orbiting 0.000548 579 909 070 AMU + 0.000 548 579

909 070 AMU.

The Decay also emits radiation( 0.000 019 957 8 AMU ).

This all totals up to3.025 174 427 256 AMU.

But that is wrong according to NISTfor He-3!

Both nuclei are also claimed to contain an unknown number, possibly twoor three, powerful Strong Nuclear Force sources; of unknown Rest Masses

and none of which have ever been detected in any experiment.

It is assumed that there are also two or one Neutrinos, which probablydon't even exist but which are credited with Nuclear (Vector) Spin and

maybe minimal Rest Mass, none of which have ever been detected

Also various Quarks, and possibly some Strings, Super-Strings and Branesare claimed, none of which has ever been experimentally detected, ofunknown quantities, and none of which has any defined Rest Mass.

Pi-Mesons of unknown numbers, which each have a huge Rest Mass of139.570 Mev, or 0.1498 AMU, or around 270 times the Rest Mass of an

electron, allegedly appear and disappear at astounding rates, hundredsof millions of times every second (from some undefined source of allthat Rest Mass energy) to enable the Strong Nuclear Force to work.

Pions seem to have further electrostatic problems that no one seems tothink about. If they really are supposed to have some sort of

stabilizing electrostatic effects on the positively charged protons in anucleus, then they cannot be the "neutral" variety. But then no one

explains how powerful positively (or negatively) charged Pions can verysuddenly appear, with a strong electrostatic charge, without violatingthe Conservation of Electric energy, and then just as suddenly disappearin around a hundred-millionth of a second. These things seem to just be"accepted" (without any logic). Even then, if the actual math of the

nuclear acceleration of the Protons is calculated, a half-life of a Pionis trillions of times too long to have the allegedly stabilizing effectof the Strong Force and the Pions on the Protons in any atomic nucleus,

so even the basic logic cannot remotely be true. Do the math.

The total Rest Mass of all these (alleged) components has never beenexperimentally or mathematically determined. It is no surprise that noone has ever been able to even remotely confirm that the Conservation of

Energy actually applies in nuclear environments.

There are a variety of reasons why that math could never been found to show Conservation of Energy. A major reason has to do with the Neutron Self-Binding Energy. Another is the enormous Rest Mass of all the Pions that allegedly constantly appear and disappear in every nucleus. Another is that no specific Rest Masses the Strong Force and other (alleged) components of any nucleus have ever been found for any of the many types of particles speculated to be inside the nucleus.

Consider instead this very simple math analysis:

Start with a Tritium atom End with an Helium-3 atomThe ACTUAL NIST Rest Mass of a

Tritium atom is 3.016 049 277 9AMU.

This is therefore a total startingEnergy of

3.016 049 277 9 AMU

The ACTUAL NIST Rest Mass of aHelium-3 atom is 3.016 029 320 1

AMU.

NIST Radiation emitted by thisBeta-Decay process is0.000 019 957 8 AMU

This is therefore a total endingEnergy of

3.016 049 277 9 AMU

Is this really simple math?

Note that we have ignored the many Neutron Self-Binding Energies, theenormous Rest Mass of Pions appearing and disappearing hundreds of

millions of times every second, whatever the Rest Mass of Strong NuclearForce sources, Neutrinos, Quarks, Strings, Super-Strings, Branes andother speculated things and only considered separate Protons and

Electrons inside of every nucleus. The precise math is so amazinglyaccurate that all of those (alleged) other objects inside every atomic

nucleus apparently do not exist at all.

It might be easier to understand the details of this presentationif a related presentation is read first. Please see Neutrinos Do Not Exist

The US Government has amassed an amazing database, called NIST, which contains really precise atomic Rest Masses of every one of the thousands of atomic isotopes, all to better than ten significant digit accuracy. For example, the NIST data says that a Proton has a Rest Mass of 1.007276466879 atomic mass units (AMU), and all the other NIST data for Rest Masses are equally impressive. In 1996, I began a careful examination of that NIST

http://mb-soft.com/public4/neutrino.html


data and I was immediately troubled. I began with a very simple nuclear process, that of a standard Beta-Decay of a Tritium (Hydrogen) atom, where it becomes a Helium-3 atom in an average of about 12.33 years. Even the new electron which gets produced in that decay is needed to begin orbiting the new Helium-3 atom to keep it neutral. The traditional thinking, using the NIST data, is that the Tritium atom of mass 3.0160492779 AMU to resultin a He-3 atom of mass 3.0160293201 AMU along with some radiationemitted (by the NIST data) of 0.0000199578 AMU. Then the processneeds to dispose of the rather major Neutron Self-Binding Energy of 0.78235 MeV (which is the same as 0.00083946 AMU) from the Neutron which USED TO EXIST inside the Tritium nucleus. Such complicated and speculated math does not add up, as noted above.

Throughout Physics history, no one could ever get that math to behave, and everyone had conceded that Conservation of Energy didnot seem to work inside atomic nuclei! Interestingly enough, themath error was nearly always the same, a missing huge amount of energy, 0.78235 MeV. In 1996, in the NIST data, I found that was not true, that the math is amazingly accurate, but with one change. Rather than trying to include that Neutron Self-Binding Energy (which you may have noted is about forty times greater than all the radiation given off in that specific Beta-Decay), I noticed that if that if the (absolutely assumed) Neutron Self-Binding Energy can somehow be left out, then the math suddenly works perfectly! I immediately tried this new math reasoning for hundreds of other nuclear processes and found that the MATH ALWAYS WORKS EXACTLY PERFECT.

Modern nuclear physics claims that every atomic nucleus is chock full of immense numbers of (unseen) objects whizzing around. Nearly all of those speculated objects were dreamed up (by Physicists or Mathematicians) to allegedly fix some previous failing of an earlier speculation. Remember Ockham's Razor? Simpler is better? What if the nuclei of atoms are not filled with immense assortments of peculiar things, but instead is far more logical and sensible and even simpler than we realize? Ockham may have been right 700 years ago! What if we really do not need a Strong Nuclear Force to try to explain some electrostatic effect that we do not easily understand, in very

peculiar ways? What if we do not need trillions of Pi Mesons appearing and disappearing inside every atomic nucleus ever second, just to (allegedly) affect those electrostatic protons, even though the Pi Mesons would necessarily cause all sorts of Conservation of Energy issues in the process? What if there may not actually be all sorts of varieties of Quarks, which seem to keep getting invented every time a new logical problem is noticed? Maybe no "strings" or "super-strings" or "branes" or "26-dimensions all wrapped up in impossibly tiny balls"? Maybe Ockham was right long ago, even about subjects that people of 1300 a.d. had no suspicion about.

Initially, in 1996, I did not understand how the huge amount of energy in the Neutron Self-Binding Energy could be ignored, but the math was so precisely accurate, using the NIST values which are accurate to ten significant figure precision, I had to look deeper. It took a lot of research, eventually involving seven years (1996-2003) before I realized that inside atomic nuclei, the Protons and Electrons necessarily must be separate, that there are no neutrons in there! That is entirely because the NISTdata is so amazingly accurate and it cannot account for any Neutron Self-Binding Energy inside any atomic nuclei. And if the Neutron Self-Binding Energy can somehow be ignored in atomic nuclei, then the math suddenly becomes incredibly accurate. In all that research, I was especially troubled by large atoms such as Uranium, where the traditional thinking is that there are 146 Neutrons inside every nucleus. The traditional thinking would require 146 * 0.78235 MeV or an astronomic amount of "unaccountedenergy" in every Uranium nucleus, on the order of 114 Mev of energy in there, just keeping all those Neutrons from Beta-Decaying. (The example of the new precise math for a Uranium atomis included below, where now the math is very comfortably accurate regarding preserving the Conservation of Energy).

The Beta-Decay of Tritium provides a simple and obvious example of where an enormous blunder and many inappropriate complicationsexist in Nuclear Physics. According to the very reliable government NIST database, a decaying Hydrogen/Tritium atom, 3H1,

has a precise atomic rest mass of 3.0160492779 AMU (Atomic Mass Units). By a Beta-Decay process, that atom

naturally decays into a resulting Helium-3 atom, 3He2, which has a precise atomic rest mass of 3.0160293201 AMU. The NISTdata also confirms that the Tritium atom does the following specific Beta-Decay, 3H1 (Tritium) → 3He2 (Helium-3) + radiation with a half-life of 12.33 years (where the resulting new electron simply begins to revolve around the new Helium nucleus to maintain it as neutral, un-ionized.) It only takes a moment to examine the math of the precise NIST scientificdata regarding that Nuclear decay, 3.0160492779 AMU → 3.0160293201 AMU to confirm that the difference betweenthe source and result atoms is EXACTLY +0.0000199578 AMU. That 0.0000199578 AMU is EXACTLY the NIST radiation that also is described as the observed experimental radiation given off of 0.0185906 MeV (in the Beta-Decay of a Tritium atom).

This simple math addition is EXACT! DO THE MATH. It scientifically accounts for all the energy and mass involved in that entireatomic structure and decay.No one before had ever found even approximate values to fit the math of the nuclear processes. People have never even tried to doaccurate math because they assumed that quite a few bundles of energy must also be in every atomic nucleus, such as the Neutron Self-Binding Energy of 0.78235 MeV for every neutron inside everynucleus, and lots of Pions (each requiring an enormous 139.0 MeV to create). According to traditional nuclear Physics, every Uranium atom (allegedly) contains 146 Neutrons inside every nucleus which would then also need to have spectacular amounts ofNeutron Self-Binding Energies inside every nucleus, and they never could figure out where all that energy could come from! This recent approach provides exact mathematical solutions and eliminates many of their math complications!

This same precise math addition has been found to be true regarding all the mass involved in any of many hundreds of other nuclear processes, where the entirety of the mass and energy in

existence is accounted for by the mass and energy of protons and electrons. Examples of several types of other nuclear process examples are presented below.

The possible presence inside any atomic nucleus of Neutrons (which each always requires an extra Self-Binding Energy of 0.78235 MeV to bind the proton and electrontogether), really messes up that math, for every neutron involved. A new approach where Protons and Electrons always remain separate inside each nucleus, instead of forming Neutrons, makes exquisite mathematical sense.In addition, any Neutrinos, any Strong Nuclear Force, any Pions (which require 139.57 MeV each to produce) or a Weak Nuclear Force and other exotic objects would also each necessarily involve additional energy, and each of those would also disrupt this amazingly precise mathematical energy accounting.

Such traditional complications of other objects inside any atomicnucleus seem simply not mathematically or logically possible! Thefact is that the highly respected NIST data, accurate to better than ten decimal place precision, does not seem to permit the mathematical provision, or energy, for any of them! This is a rather peculiar perspective for a Theoretical Physicist, educatedat the University of Chicago, to have!

I encourage all interested readers to also carefully examine the characteristics given to the Strong Nuclear Force and the Pions within atomic nuclei, both dreamed up around 1930. They include several outrageous assumptions that have never had any experimental confirmation! For example, the Strong Force is supposed to not behave like any of the other basic forces of the Universe, of only acting within an unbelievably tiny distance

range (usually described as about 2 femtometers or 2 * 10-15 meters, which is not even the dimensions of any atomic nucleus.) That was claimed without any experimental evidence or proof, and only because they needed the Strong to not affect anything beyondthe nucleus! Then they imagined that it was a truly weird force in acting to usually attract other objects except if the objects get too close, it then instantly reverses and repels them! Again,without any evidence or proof or experimental hints! The Strong Force is also imagined to have a strange distance dependency, where one Professor of mine at the University of Chicago told us students that it acted as an Inverse-fifth-Power distance dependency. However, other of those Professors had told us that it was an Inverse-third-Power distance dependency. It cannot be both! But again, in 80 years of thousands of Physicists doing experiments since then, no one has ever done any experiment that might suggest either of those to be true. But when you then add that the Strong Force usually attracts but sometimes repels then any logical argument that a Strong Nuclear Force even exists, with any claim to any distance dependency seems pretty questionable.

Nuclear Pions were also dreamed up with just as much vacuum of evidence or actual logic. Allegedly, the Strong Nuclear Force is able to act by having nuclear Pions instantaneously appear and disappear, in phenomenal numbers, and for hilariously brief existences (around 10-23 second) (which is also so brief as to eliminate any possible experiment ever detecting them.) For the record, light being the fastest thing that can exist, and even light cannot cross the size of any atomic nucleus in that interval of time.)

For reasons that mystify me, all my fellow Physicists simply accept these wild speculations and assumptions, without ever questioning the credibility of any of them. But if such things actually exist inside any atomic nucleus, someone would need to explain where amazing amounts of energy need to come from and then disappear to, to explain how such things could exist while still complying with the Conservation of Energy and the Conservation of Angular Momentum. In general, modern Physicists seem to simply ignore such concerns! Actually, they do!

If even one Pi-Meson could somehow come into existence inside an atomic nucleus, that is a lot of energy of existence (139.0 MeV, equal to more than 270 electrons.) which would need to get explained! Worse, they then dreamed up even far smaller objects, such as Super-Strings, which they claim exist and which allegedlyexplain those other concerns which they cannot explain. But not in any way where logic is involved! The point of this presentation, which was created in massive analytical, statistical research of the highly respected NIST data between 1996 and 2003, provides a far simpler explanation of nuclear structure, without even needing the speculated Strong Nuclear Force, nuclear Pions, nuclear Neutrons, strings, super-strings, Neutrinos or other complications. The separate sample analyses included below, along with thousands of other similar analyses ofother nuclear reactions, all show that NIST data suggests that only Protons and Electrons may exist inside atomic nuclei! As a result, everything is now totally compatible with all the Conservation Laws of science.

The concept presented here might seem to have a serious flaw in that no "extra tools like a Strong Nuclear Force or Pions or Neutrons" seem to exist to explain why all the positively chargedProtons in every nucleus are not repelling each other out of the nucleus, which would make everything unstable. There is a wonderful solution to this, which is entirely electrostatic in nature, which is presented more fully in the more comprehensive article linked below. Consider a conventional Helium-4 nucleus. The premise here is that its four nuclear protons exist in a regular tetrahedron pattern, rapidly spinning around the center of the nucleus. Actually, they spin so fast, comparable to the speed of light, that we see them as a "shell" Remember that thereare two loose electrons which are also inside that nucleus. The problem is of the four positively charged Protons being rather close to each other, so they produce an electrostatic repulsion that is really intense (due to the inverse-square-law of electromagnetism). Consider for a moment that one of those two negatively-charged Electrons happens to be exactly halfway between two of those Protons. Given this, each Proton certainly experiences a net repulsion of an easily calculable force due to

the other Proton. But each of those two Protons would also experience an attraction of four times that much force (due to the Electron being there.) Again, that's just the Inverse-Square-Law of Electrodynamics. So, in this situation, instead of the Protons being repelled out of the Nucleus, they would have an attractive force which is three times more powerful which causes each of those two Protons to collapse in on each other! There areonly two of these available intra-nuclear Electrons, and it turnsout that there are six possible halfway locations in that Tetrahedron. If the two Electrons just migrate around to those six locations, each for one-third of the time, then a meta-stability is created, where each Proton, on the average, has justas much net repulsion as attraction, and therefore the nucleus isstable or at least meta-stable. This is without needing any bizarre Strong Nuclear Force or trillions of imaginary Pions whizzing around inside every nucleus. Most nuclei may be meta-stable due to only the Protons and Electrons in there. This reasoning does have a consequence, where the radial location of each Proton inside the Nucleus "radially vibrates" very rapidly, and I believe that at least some nuclei seem to show evidence of these super-fast vibrations.

A much more comprehensive presentation is linked below, which also provides explanations for "Nuclear Fine Structure" and many other details, but it is probably harder to read for non-Physicists!

Relying on current NIST data, simple beta- or beta+ atomic decaysare extremely simple processes when Conservation of Energy is involved, if the internal Neutrons are just considered to be separate Protons and Electrons. Consider the especially simple process mentioned above, Tritium natural nuclear Beta-Decay into Helium-3 by giving off an Electron which becomes an orbiting Electron in the new (neutral, un-ionized) Helium-3 atom, while itgives off a precisely known amount of radiation during the decay.That is:

3H1 (Tritium) → 3He2 (Helium-3) + radiation with a half-lifeof 12.33 years.

NIST data gives the Energy quantities (or atomic mass) as:

3.0160492779 AMU → 3.0160293201 AMU +0.0000199578 AMU

The 0.0000199578 AMU energy is identical to the observed experimental radiation of 0.0185906 MeV.

In other words, where an (alleged) Neutron used to exist in the nucleus of the Tritium atom, there is now an extra Proton in the new Helium-3 nucleus and a new Electron is orbiting in the new Helium-3 atom, as well as the observed radiation emitted. The NIST data on atomic masses seems to conclusively show that everything that used to be associated with the Tritium IS ACCOUNTED FOR! EXACTLY!

This would not be true if the Proton and Electron inside the Tritium atom were assumed to be bound up as a Neutron, because then, an additional 0.78235 MeV of "Neutron Self-Binding Energy" must have also existed inside the Tritium nucleus and the NIST math shows that it clearly did not! That large amount of energy also does not suddenly "appear" during the Beta-Decay process.

We might also describe the Tritium atom as being composed of three Protons and three Electrons (although we traditionally say that two of the Protons and two of the Electrons are bonded together as Neutrons). We might also describe the Helium-3 atom as being composed of three Protons and three Electrons (although we normally say that one of the Protons and one of the Electrons are bonded together as a Neutron). In other words, we start and end with the exact same number of component parts, the Electrons and Protons.

This same precise Energy Auditing for any of hundreds of other nuclear processes shows this same impressive mathematical accounting for all energy and mass.

The traditional understanding of this Tritium decay is a lot morecomplicated than that! A Neutron inside the Hydrogen's Tritium-3 nucleus comes apart into four major component parts: a Proton (which stays inside the nucleus and converts it into a Helium nucleus) and a Beta-particle (which is an Electron which leaves the Tritium nucleus and becomes a second orbiting Electron in the

new Helium-3 atom), along with a Neutron Self-Binding Energy of 0.78235 MeV (which used to be needed to hold the Neutron togetherinside the Tritium nucleus) and an Anti-Neutrino (which is assumed to also have formed in order to (allegedly) Conserve Nuclear Spin in the decay). Where did the previous 0.78235 MeV ofNeutron Self-Binding Energy go when the Neutron decayed? Note that the reliably experimentally measured radiation given off by the Tritium beta-decay (0.0186 MeV) is only about 1/40 of that much energy (or mass). That is a lot of Neutron Self-Binding Energy which (allegedly) must still exist (0.78235 MeV), (somewhere) which is assumed to hold every nuclear Proton and Electron together into the assumed Neutrons inside atomic nuclei.All that Neutron Self-Binding Energy cannot just disappear, because of the Conservation of Energy.

It is certainly true that Free-Ranging Neutrons do exist (and some of them are crossing the room you are sitting in right now),and they do contain that exact amount of Neutron Self-Binding Energy which holds the Proton and Electron together, at least fora half-life of about 15 minutes before naturally decaying into separate Protons and Electrons. In a Conservation of Energy, suchBeta-Decays always result in a photon of radiation being given off, which has that exact same energy of 0.78235 MeV. Also, such a photon is necessary for an Electron and a Proton to fuse together in becoming a Neutron.

Interestingly, that experimentally proven half-life of 15 minutesis totally neglected regarding Neutrons inside all atomic nuclei!If that is allegedly so, then someone should explain why Neutronsreliably Beta Decay when alone (15 minutes half-life) but don't when they are inside nuclei (half-life of 12.33 years in this case)! If Neutrons actually exist inside all atomic nuclei, and natural Beta-Decay occurs every fifteen minutes, then that implies that every atom of every element is constantly having Neutron Self-Binding energy of 3/4 of a million Electron-Volts constantly having wild variations of nuclear mass. I do not see how anyone could believe that every atom of every element could have its (precise) Rest Mass constantly wildly fluctuating.

That traditional argument has lots more of logical problems! First, some explanation must be provided regarding why a bunch ofProtons and Neutrons would want to stay together as stable nuclei, when the Neutrons are electrically neutral and not obviously prone to wanting to stay in any stable tight herd. Also, the positively-charged Protons clearly should repel each other ferociously to want to escape from every atomic nucleus. Around 80 years ago, Physicists, particularly Hideki and WolfgangPauli, dreamed up something we call the Strong Nuclear Force to supposedly explain this stability. But where is the immense amount of energy needed to supply this Strong Force (and then where does it go when a Neutron decays into a Proton and an Electron?) The usual argument also claims that a whole bunch of different things (packets of energy) are involved!

Pursue the arguments that were the basis of these "totally accepted" arguments. For example, in 1930 Hideki speculated that Pi-mesons must exist inside atomic nuclei, to provide a method where the Strong Force could keep Protons and Neutrons inside a nucleus stable. However, as of yet, 2016, no one has yet found any actual evidence that any Pion has ever been found inside any nucleus! In fact, it was 17 years later, in 1947, that the first Pi-meson had ever been detected, and that was at the very top of the Earth's atmosphere by Powell. Further, the actual Pi-Mesons (which have ever been found) have always had a lifetime of 2.6 * 10-8 second (charged) or 8.4 * 10-17 second (neutral). These actualexperimentally measured lifetimes were all millions of time too long for the purposes needed inside the atomic nucleus, so the lifetime was simply defined as 10-23 second. Since that is far more brief than any experiment could ever detect, it was a safe "speculation" since no one could ever prove it wrong! No nuclear Pi-meson has or will ever be detected, or can be! Pretty safe to make a speculation like that, which can never be proven wrong! Noevidence of any Strong Nuclear Force has ever or will ever be detected. Each previously accepted speculation quickly became totally accepted, such that new speculations got presented and quickly adopted! (Modern Nuclear Physics is chock full of such ridiculous speculations which could never be experimentally detected, or therefore proven wrong, like Super Strings, Branes, and dozens of other speculative ideas.)

The (1) Proton and the (2) Electron are the obvious primary constituents; (3) the very large amount of necessary Neutron Self-Binding Energy (0.78235 MeV); (4) energy that could convert into becoming an anti-neutrino; (5) kinetic energy or radiation that the anti-neutrino carries away when leaving the nucleus; (6)a huge amount of more energy (139.0 MeV) which supposedly converts into Pion particles (by the Strong Nuclear Force) (the Pions supposedly created inside a nucleus are claimed to exist for a phenomenally short period of time before decaying, a half-life of 10-23 second) and (7) some nuclear Spin (involving magnetic and kinetic energy) of the anti-neutrinos and other nuclear particles. Specifically, while it was still a Neutron (allegedly) inside the nucleus, there was a Nuclear Spin of 1/2 unit, while after the decay, both the Proton and the Electron each have a Nuclear Spin of 1/2 unit. In order to try to explain this apparent Non-Conservation of Spin Energy, an entirely new object was dreamed up, the Neutrino (and Anti-Neutrino), which has no mass, no charge and essentially no existence, except for having exactly 1/2 unit of Nuclear Spin. In about 80 years of trying to experimentally detect any neutrinos, essentially no direct evidence has ever been found, except for some implied experimental suggestions that they might exist.

There is another curious simple flaw in Nuclear Physics regardingthis reasoning. Nuclear Spin is Angular Momentum, a Vector quantity (of 1/2 unit). For bizarre reasons that are beyond me, all Physicists seem to assume they are Scalar quantities, which would require the speculation of a Neutrino's existence, with a Spin of 1/2, to Conserve Spin by a Scalar 1/2 = 1/2 + 1/2 - 1/2. But that is not remotely true!

As an actual Vector quantity, it is clear that there is no need to dream up a Neutrino in order to Conserve Nuclear Spin. Specifically, by simple Vector Addition, two Spin Vectors which happen to be at an angle of 120 degrees from each other can add, as Vectors, to become a new Spin Vector which has exactly the same amplitude (1/2) but is now at an orientation of a third sideof an equilateral triangle.

How could any Physicist believe that it was even needed to dream

up a Neutrino, for the single purpose of Conserving Nuclear Spin?A really smart Physicist, Wolfgang Pauli dreamed up the existenceof Neutrinos to achieve this Scalar addition of the Vector quantities, so apparently everyone just accepted that he must be right! But he wasn't!

The speculations on all this complex activity to try to explain how Protons and Neutrons interact within atomic nuclei therefore involve a number of alleged objects which whiz around inside every atomic nucleus, Neutrinos, Pions, Neutron Self-Binding Energies, each of which allegedly can only exist for such a shortperiod of time to never be detectable by any experimental equipment mankind has ever made. All the supposed "evidence" of the existence of these exotic objects has been implied by an assortment of assumptions that have been made, all with the intent to try to explain just two things: how atomic nuclei couldstably exist in the face of immense repelling electrostatic forces of Protons, and the alleged behaviors of Neutrons inside atomic nuclei. The point being presented here is that none of that complex trickery is even necessary, that two of the four alleged Basic Forces of the Universe probably do not even exist at all, and where simple and traditional Electrostatic Attractionand Repulsion clearly can explain all that is seen in atomic nuclei.

The Tritium decay caught my attention for a different reason. Both that original Tritium atom and the beta-decay product Helium-3 are rather stable atoms. But given the traditional understanding, how could that be? By traditional thinking, I could concede that Tritium should reasonably be stable, because it only has one positively charged Proton inside the nucleus (assuming we accept the traditional argument that the two Neutrons in that nucleus are electrically neutral). However, notice what is different from the Helium-3 nucleus! There are twopositively charged Protons in there now. No one ever explained why this atom would comfortably allow the two protons to be repelling each other with spectacular force, but somehow still beeven more stable than the Tritium atom which had beta-decayed dueto only one proton in there. Not much different, due to a simple beta-decay loss of an electron, except now, the Helium-3 must be

trying to burst at the seams! I have spent most of my long careeras a Theoretical Physicist troubled by "tiny details" like that!

When I was in Physics Courses at the University of Chicago in the1960s, I had already been aware that both the Gravitational and Electrostatic Forces act with inverse-square distance dependencies. One of the Professors explained to us students thatthere is a Strong Nuclear Force, which acts with an inverse-fifth-power distance dependency. That drove me crazy for most of my Career in Nuclear Physics, as it seemed so wrong by having to have dreamed up a weird law of science which does not exist anywhere else in the Universe. Worse, some different Professors there described the Strong Nuclear Force as having an inverse-third-power distance dependency. So even the Physicists who were teaching us could not agree on a very basic fact! I later learnedthat there has never been any basis for claiming either a third-power or a fifth-power dependency, as those were both assumptionswhich were not based on any actual physical evidence!

A related presentation which is far more comprehensive, developedbetween 1996 and 2003, provides what I believe to be a wonderfully simple and purely electrostatic explanation for all the activities within atomic nuclei, at Nuclear Physics - Statistical Analysis of Isotope Masses which is a careful examination of the highly respected NIST data.

Back to the example Tritium beta-decay:

http://mb-soft.com/public2/nuclei6.html


Look at this rather simple actual Energy Auditing of this Tritiumdecay.

3H1 (Tritium) 3He2 (Helium-3)

one proton, two neutrons, and one orbiting electron

two protons, one neutron and twoorbiting electrons

describing the neutrons as separate protons and electrons:

three protons and two nuclear electrons and one orbiting electron

three protons and one nuclear electron and two orbiting electrons

The total NIST atomic mass of the entire atoms

3.0160492779 AMU 3.0160293201 AMU

radiation energy emitted by the decay0.0000199578 AMU

total start 3.0160492779 AMU total end 3.0160492779 AMU

This beta-decay creates external radiation of 0.0185906 MeV or 0.0000199578 AMU. The NIST data for this beta-decay is that it emits radiation of 0.0185906 MeV.

Note that the starting and ending atoms contain exactly the same contents, a total of three protons and three electrons, and we have accounted for all the existing energy within a tiny experimental margin.

The fact that essentially zero energy existed inside the Tritium nucleus that could represent the source of the rather enormous intra-neutron self-binding energy, a neutrino, and the Strong Force, and Pions, seems to establish that none of those things could actually exist inside the Tritium nucleus!

Just the self-binding energy required to hold a free-ranging neutron together is known to be far more than that, 0.78235 MeV. There is no available energy source for that self-binding energy

to exist inside the Tritium nucleus.

Notice also that the difference in atomic mass between Tritium and Helium-3 is essentially entirely accounted for by the emittedradiation associated with the beta- decay. Less than 1 electron-Volt appears available to account for the existence of anything else, and that even nicely accounts for the kinetic energy of the(new) second orbiting electron. There is another factor involved here, in that the Migrating electron inside the Tritium nucleus had some kinetic energy in there, which now has disappeared, but these two opposing energy factors seem to generally result in values which are within the experimental energy error factor.

There are actually three protons and three electrons in both of these atoms, the only difference being that one of the electrons is inside the nucleus in the Tritium nucleus and the other is orbiting the nucleus in the Helium-3.

In other words, no energy either appears or disappears, and some simple kinetic energy that the nuclear electron carried is still carried as the electron orbits in the atom.

No energy exists which might have been the source for new neutrinos or Pions or for the Neutron Self-Binding Energy necessary to bind a proton and an electron together into a neutron.

We can look at the similar simple actual Energy Auditing of any of hundreds of other nuclear processes.

Here is an example of (one variety of) a process called Hydrogen Fusion:

2H1 (Deuterium) + 3H1

(Tritium)4He2 (Helium-4 ) + 1n0 (Neutron)

2 protons, 3 neutrons and 2 orbiting electrons

2 protons, 2 neutron and 2 orbiting electrons and a free neutron

describing the neutrons as being separate protons and electrons

5 protons and 3 nuclearelectrons and 2 orbiting electrons

4 protons and 2 nuclear electron and 2 orbiting electrons and a free neutron, which is a proton + electron

The total NIST atomic mass of the entire objects

2.014102 AMU + 3.01605 AMU 4.00260 AMU + 1.008 664 915 88 AMU

radiation given off by the Hydrogen Fusionprocess0.018887 AMU


This Hydrogen fusion causes external radiation of 17.6 MeV or 0.018887 AMU. The NIST data shows that this Hydrogen Fusion givesoff of the expected fusion radiation of 17.6 MeV.

Here is a Free-Ranging Neutron beta-decay: 1n0 (Neutron) 1p1 (Proton) + 0e-1 (Electron)

1 neutron 1 proton and 1 free-ranging electron


1.008 664 915 88 AMU 1.007 276 466 879 AMU +0.000 548 579 909 070 AMU

radiation given off by the neutron beta-decay process0.000 839 87 AMU

kinetic energy of the new electron0.000 000 001 AMU

total start 1.008 664 915 88 AMU total end 1.008 664 916 AMU

The NIST data shows that this neutron beta-decay gives off 0.000839 87 AMU or 0.78233 MeV of radiation. This energy seen in beta-decay of free-ranging neutrons is provided by the Neutron Self-Binding Energy which was necessary in binding the proton andelectron together in the neutron but which is no longer needed after the proton and electron exist separately. That radiation isnot seen in beta-decay of any (alleged) neutron inside any atomicnuclei. That is because no neutron had existed inside the atomic nucleus.

Here is an example of a process called Electron Capture: 7Be4 (Beryllium) 7Li3 (Lithium)

4 protons, 3 neutrons, and 4 orbiting electrons



7 protons and 3 nuclear electrons and 4 orbiting electrons



7.0169292 AMU 7.0160040 AMU

radiation given off by the Electron-capture process0.0009252 AMU


This Electron Capture causes external radiation of 0.8618 MeV or 0.0009252 AMU. The NIST data shows that this Electron Capture gives off 0.8618 MeV of radiation.

This mathematical analysis also works for beta+ decays which are described as creating positrons instead of electrons, such as in this example:

181Pt78 (Platinum) 181Ir77 (Iridium)

78 protons, 103 neutrons, and 78orbiting electrons






180.96275 AMU 180.95731 AMU

radiation energy given off by the beta+ decay process0.00544 AMU


This beta+ decay process causes external radiation of 0.00544 AMUor 5.0672 MeV. The NIST data shows that the experimental radiation given off by this beta+ decay is 5.0 MeV.

Here is an example of a process of Neutron emission: 4He2 (Helium-4) 3He2 (Helium-3) and a Neutron

2 protons, 2 neutrons, and 2 orbiting electrons

2 protons, 1 neutron and one free neutronand 2 orbiting electrons


4 protons and 2 nuclearelectrons and 2 orbiting electrons

3 protons and 1 nuclear electron and 2 orbiting electrons + a free neutron whichis a proton and electron


4.0280 AMU 3.01603 AMU1.008665 AMU

radiation given off by the neutron-emission process0.003305 AMU


The NIST data shows that this neutron emission gives off 0.003305AMU or 3 MeV of radiation.

Here is another well-known beta-decay process, which is called Carbon-14 or Radio-Carbon dating. This process has a half-life ofaround 5715 years:

14C6 (Carbon-14) 14N7 (Nitrogen-14)

six protons, eight neutrons, andsix orbiting electrons

seven protons, seven neutrons andseven orbiting electrons

describing the neutrons as being separate protons and electrons:

fourteen protons and eight nuclear electrons and six orbiting electron

fourteen protons and seven nuclear electron and seven orbiting electrons


14.003 241 988 4 AMU 14.003 074 004 43 AMU

radiation energy emitted by the decay0.000 167 99 AMU

total start 14.003 241 988 4 AMUtotal end 14.003 241 994 43 AMU

This beta-decay creates external radiation of 0.15648 MeV or 0.00016799 AMU. The NIST data for this beta-decay is that it emits radiation of 0.15648 MeV.

Note that, like in all other possible nuclear processes, the starting and ending atoms contain exactly the same contents, a total of fourteen protons and fourteen electrons, and we have accounted for all the existing energy within a tiny experimental margin.

Here is an example of (one variety of about ten) a process calledUranium Fission:

235U92 (Uranium) + 1n0

(Neutron) 140Cs55 (Cesium) + 93Rb37 (Rubidium) +

three Neutrons

92 protons, 143 neutrons and 92 orbiting electrons and a free neutron

92 protons, 141 neutrons and 92 orbiting electrons and three free neutrons


92 protons and 143 nuclear electrons and 92 orbiting electrons and a free protonand electron

92 protons and 141 nuclear electrons and 92 orbiting electrons and three free neutrons, which are each a proton + electron


235.043 930 1 AMU + 1.008 664 915 88 AMU

139.917 283 1 AMU +92.922 039 3 AMU +1.008 664 915 88 AMU +1.008 664 915 88 AMU +1.008 664 915 88 AMU

radiation given off by the Uranium Fission process0.1973 AMU

total start 236.052 595 1 AMU total end 236.052 617 4 AMU

This Uranium fission causes external radiation of around 200 MeV or 0.1973 AMU. The NIST data shows that this Uranium Fission gives off of the expected fission radiation of about 200 MeV.

NOTE: There are at least nine other ways that this Uranium Fission reaction can and does occur, such as where different isotopes of Cesium and Rubidium can be created and where different numbers of Neutrons are then created. The numbers are

different for each of those permutations. In all cases, the new isotopes are unstable and they decay into other isotopes, in all cases still complying with the Conservation of Energy arguments presented here.

U235 can also do a natural decay which has a half-life of 703 million years:

235U92 (Uranium) 231Th90 (Thorium) + 4Alpha particle2


90 protons, 141 neutrons and 90 orbiting electrons and an Alpha particle, which is 2protons and 2 neutrons, and two electrons


92 protons and 143 nuclear electrons and92 orbiting electrons

92 protons and 143 nuclear electrons and 92orbiting electrons


235.043 930 1 AMU 231.036 304 AMU +4.001 506 179 125 AMU

radiation given off by the Uranium Natural Decay process0.006 119 9 AMU or 5.701 MeV

total start 235.043 930 1 AMU total end 235.043 930 1 AMU

There are sometimes a really tiny difference in the atomic mass of the start and end, which generally is due to some subtle changes in the orbital energy of the electrons in the atoms and or within the nucleus. An even more strict energy auditing accounts for this. It seems to be precise, within experimental accuracy, for thousands of different nuclear transitions.

The more thorough analysis of the NIST data for all the activities within atomic nuclei, is at Nuclear Physics - Statistical Analysis of Isotope Masses which is a careful examination of the highly respected NIST data.

An examination of Wolfgang Pauli's logical blunder of 1930 is at Neutrinos Do Not Exist.




The main isotope-analysis presentation was first placed on the Internet in 2003.

This more brief presentation of the subject matter was first placed on the Internet in January 2014.

A solid understanding of all of this seems very difficult. There must be some explanation for the following situation. Say that you had a generic atom of carbon. The claim being made here is that the nucleus of this atom has twelve protons and six electrons freely moving about inside that nucleus. There clearly is some immensely powerful reason that it all wants to stay together to be a stable atom of carbon. How come one of those Protons does not get repelled from the eleven other protons inside that nucleus? If it did, the 12C6 would then logically become a 11B5 nucleus but the atom would simultaneously become a negatively ionized atom since it still had six orbiting electronsaround the five-charged new nucleus. Or, what if one of the nucleus' electrons somehow got expelled? In that case, the atom would logically become a 12N7 nucleus. In this case the atom wouldsimultaneously become a positively ionized atom since it still had six orbiting electrons around the seven-charged new nucleus.

A number of years of research suggest that the intra-nuclear electrons somehow know when and where to migrate around inside the nucleus to maximize stability. But how could this process be so effective to be able to enable trillions of carbon nuclei to avoid such "spontaneous beta-like decay"?

Some isotopes of some elements are not stable, but many elements such as oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, sodium, potassium, are extremely stable. This seems to hint that this concept has some merit due to the amazing mathematical precision of nuclear and atomic masses, but that there are many aspects of this which are currently beyond our human understanding.

My Research has noted that many of the common elements tend to beelements and isotopes which have even numbers of protons and migrating nuclear electrons, which may help explain the stabilityof some of them

I realize that this presentation seems to contain some ideas which might seem peculiar. As a Theoretical Physicist, I have always been taught to be very skeptical of anything until the strict logic is examined. Those seven years I spent in studying the NIST data on precise isotope masses eventually convinced me that this must be true, even though I am very uncomfortable in saying that all textbooks must be wrong about claiming that neutrons are everywhere inside all atomic nuclei, and that the alleged logic behind that, of the neutrality of neutrons is somehow really important. I spent several years looking to find some way that my logic could be wrong, but, so far, I never have been able to.

There may be another detail that I am tempted to think that I have figured out, but which I cannot find any solid logic to support, so I am just mentioning it here. The Tritium Beta-Decay,which was discussed so much above, certainly does seem to have impeccable math regarding the NIST figures. But as a stickler on logic and details, I do see one other thing that seems to have changed between the Tritium and the Helium-3 that it will become.There is a small amount of radiation which gets sent away with the new Helium-3 atom. I am troubled in that that seems to potentially represent a Violation of either Energy or Mass, whichI would find intolerable. My tentative explanation for that mentions the regular polyhedrons that I think somehow might help the many protons to remain in stable locations inside the nucleus. Whether that polyhedron is actually energy or mass, it seems like it must be one or the other. So, if the Tritium atom actually contained some sort of regular polyhedron, which we cannot detect, what if that regular polyhedron either changed or disappeared during the Beta-Decay, where an amount of energy equivalent to that (mysterious) regular polyhedron disappeared and, in Conserving Energy, must then get radiated away during theBeta Decay.

Footnote: All Physicists are trained to only submit Research Papers to the Physical Review. I started this research in 1996 and Isoon realized how extremely important my results were. So I went to all the time and trouble to re-write my Paper in the exact specific font and type face and size and formatting that Physical

Review demanded for acceptance. Separate from my years of Research on these matters, I spent several more months just ensuring that all my i's were dotted and my t's were crossed, andall the rest of Formatting that they demanded. In 2001, I mailed in the (five copies, as I recall) Paper to their address, and waited for a response. There was none! I eventually learned that a young man in mail-handling at Physical Review had received my mail, and he was troubled that my work seemed to bring question into the concept of Quantum Dynamics. I managed to locate him at Physical Review and I made a phone call to him. I quickly found out that he was not anybody important at Physical Review, and he was essentially a "Secretary" there who opened the mail and then handled the paperwork by forwarding it to the appropriate Offices, including forwarding the five copies of received Articles to the five members of the Peer Review Group which were to examine that particular Field of Physics.

He was very young but he made clear to me that he was a lifelong follower of Quantum Mechanics, and he decided that my Paper wouldgo no further! What he was supposed to do was to forward the fivecopies of my Paper to the five Physicist Peers for them to reviewmy Paper and Research, such that Peer Review would then determinewhether my Paper would get Published. That aberrant young man denied my Paper the opportunity to ever be seen by anyone else, including any of the Peer Review Group members that he was supposed to forward my Article to, so there was never any Peer Review of my six years of work. He even told me on the telephone that he had thrown all the copies of my paperwork into the garbage! He even went further! He told me to never contact the Physical Review ever again!

I suspect that the Physical Review Editors could not have been pleased that a Theoretical Physicist educated at the University of Chicago was denied even the standard Peer Review opportunity because of an aberrant young man in their employ, but I decided to not crowd them on that. Shortly later, I re-edited my Researchinto a web-page, which I published in 2003, at: Nuclear Physics -Statistical Analysis of Isotope Masses Nuclear Structure. (research 1996-2003, published in 2003)(This) brief article was added in January 2014, which leaves out



much of the complex stuff and simply presents the basics of the Research and Findings, at: Nuclear Physics May be Fairly Simple (published Jan 2014)

Carl W. Johnson, Theoretical Physicist, Physics Degree from University of Chicago


Documents

Nuclear Physics may be fairly Simple