Atomic Nuclei

Electron, proton and neutron.

According to Morton Spears' calculations, the proton consists of exactly 1089 positive quanta, 1088 negative quanta, and an unknown number of neutral quanta.

This leaves the proton with a net positive charge of one.

The neutron consists of exactly 1090 positive quanta, 1090 negative quanta, and an unknown number of neutral quanta.

This leaves the neutron with a net charge of zero.

Note that the difference in charged particles between the proton and the neutron is exactly two negative quanta and one positive quantum. This is the electron, as explained in the chapter on that particle.

When we combine this with what we know about free neutron decay, it is clear that there is in addition to the three charged quanta, one neutral quantum separating the proton from the neutron.

Free neutron decay.

Free neutrons decay into one proton, one electron and one anti-neutrino. For some reason, Morton Spears did not recognize this in his book on the subject. He incorrectly believed the electron to be a single negative quantum.

The fact that a neutron cannot exist as a free particle in nature without decaying into a proton, electron and anti-neutrino, tells us that the electron and anti-neutrino must form the glue that holds protons together, and that neutrons do not in fact exist as anything but a transient particle.

In the Velcro model of the atomic nucleus, we have protons held together by electrons and neutrinos. The anti-neutrino is just a particular "flavour" of the neutrino, as explained in the chapter of the neutrino. It is not a separate particle. It merely has a particular footprint due to its particular function as glue.

When a piece of inertial matter is split off from a large atomic nucleus through nuclear fission, it always manifests itself as some multiple of protons and neutrons. The smallest possible unit that can be fissioned off is a proton or a neutron, depending on whether or not the "glue" of an electron and a neutrino is included in the piece.

If a proton comes off together with the glue, we refer to it as a neutron. However, the proton soon rids itself of the glue, and this is what is known as free neutron decay.

After the decay, we are left with a proton, known to us as a regular hydrogen nucleus.

If the glue stays with the nucleus, we get a free proton directly. Any decay of the glue will happen in the nucleus that gave up the proton.

What holds the neutrons and protons from falling apart in the Velcro model is not a force as such, but the hooks and hoops of positive, neutral and negative quanta.

The idea that there must be a strong force keeping the nucleus together is based on a misunderstanding about what constitutes a force. Conventional physics view forces as something that is communicated without anything kinetic going on. There is therefore a need to counter the supposed enormous repelling force between positive quanta in the proton due to incessant communication.

However, in the Velcro model the electric force is communicated by colliding neutrinos. The electric force exist only when there is space between charged particles in which neutrinos can move. If there is no space between particles, there is no force.

From this, it follows that there is no electric force between particles in a closely knit structure like the proton or the photon. There is therefore no need for the so called strong force in the Velcro model.

Protons and neutrons are enormous structures, and are therefore capable of storing enormous amounts of energy. However, this comes at a price. Just like the electron, protons and neutrons need time to absorb energy. They have inertia, and their inertia is greater than that of the electron in direct proportion to their relative larger size.

The sluggish absorption of energy by structures larger than a photon is directly proportional to the number of quanta in them, not because quanta have inertia, but because the manner in which larger particles are put together is identical.

Compared to photons, inertial matter are bloated structures full of energy.

Protons and neutrons may well be hollow. If so, some of them may have neutrinos bouncing about inside of them. However, any neutrinos trapped inside protons or neutrons are unlikely to produce any net electric force. The space is too small, and almost certainly sealed off in such a way that no over-pressure can build up inside.

However, when protons come together to form large atomic nuclei in combination with electrons and neutrinos as glue, the pressure inside the structure becomes an issue.

Atomic nuclei are almost certainly hollow structures, bloated, and full of little holes that allows neutrinos to enter and leave the core.

Since atomic nuclei have positive charge in direct proportion to how many protons they have, large atomic nuclei have significant over-pressure inside of them.

This explains why large atomic nuclei tend to be radioactive, and why there is an upper limit to how large atomic nuclei can be.

Atomic nuclei larger than a certain size cannot exist because they would immediately get torn apart by internal pressures. Nuclei that are large, but not so large that they get immediately torn apart, are radioactive in direct relation to how likely they are to get torn apart by a particularly unfortunate combination of neutrino impacts.

Since positive quanta are slightly more reactive than negative quanta, they get more easily entangled into large structures. This is why large particles are either positively or neutrally charged but never negatively charged.

However, this does not explain why protons and neutrons are more than 300 times larger then the electron.

The relative size difference between electrons and protons seems arbitrary. Could it not just as well be some other relationship? Why over 300? Why not under 200?

As it happens, there is a good deal of evidence to suggest that protons and neutrons are not the same size throughout the universe, and may have been substantially smaller in our own region of space in the past.

The astronomer, Halton Arp, noted in his work on young galaxies, so called quasars, that they appear to have lighter, less massive atoms than older galaxies.

The light spectra coming from quasars is heavily red-shifted. This is interpreted by most astronomers as an indication that quasars are distant objects in an expanding universe. However, Halton Arp, noted that quasars often appear to be relatively close to us. The red-shift would therefore have to be due to something different than distance.

Halton Arp's conclusion was that young structures in the universe are not necessarily very distant, but lacking in mass (inertia).

We know from observing the difference in light spectra between a regular hydrogen atom and the more massive hydrogen isotope known as deuterium, that the light spectra of deuterium is blue-shifted relative to regular hydrogen.

The less massive a hydrogen nucleus is, the more red-shifted it is. The physics behind Halton Arp's conclusion is in other words entirely correct.

However, there is an even more compelling reason to believe that protons and neutrons tend to grow over time.

The enormous size of dinosaurs can easily be explained if we are willing to accept that they may have lived in an environment in which there was less inertia.

The inertia we have today, with its accompanying gravity, is greater and stronger than it was in the time of the dinosaurs. The dinosaurs lived in an environment of less inertia and less gravity.

Atomic nuclei were smaller during the time of the dinosaurs. This would have given the nuclei less inertia, and it would have made big nuclei less radioactive, since radioactivity depends on overall size.

Uranium, which is dangerously radioactive to us, may have been quite inert and harmless in the past.

Inertia and radioactivity are not constants in the universe. They are variable, just like the electric and magnetic force.