[C1ay]

What if the tiniest components of matter were somehow different from the way they exist now, perhaps only slightly different or maybe a lot? What if they had been different from the moment the universe began in the big bang? Would matter as we know it be the same? Would humans even exist?

Scientists are starting to find answers to some profound questions such as these, thanks to a breakthrough in the calculations needed to understand the strong nuclear force that comes from the motion of nature's basic building blocks, subatomic particles called quarks and gluons.

The strong nuclear force that binds these particles together, which is also called quantum chromodynamics, is one of the four basic forces of nature, along with gravity, electromagnetism and the weak force. The strong nuclear force is very powerful at short ranges, binding quarks and gluons into neutrons and protons at the core of atoms.

The basic equations that describe the nuclear force have been known since the mid 1970s, and were the subject of the 2004 Nobel Prize in physics. But physicists still know very little of how the force described by these equations binds protons and neutrons into the nuclei of atoms.

Now a team of researchers using a supercomputer and a method called lattice quantum chromodynamics have been able to calculate interactions among neutrons and protons from the properties of quarks and gluons. The lattice essentially divides the space-time continuum into a four-dimensional grid, allowing the researchers to examine the effects of the strong force, which becomes important at distances of one 100-trillionth (or 10 -15) of a meter or less. The new calculation is a first step toward understanding how nuclear forces emerge from the interactions between quarks and gluons, said Martin Savage, a University of Washington physics professor who is part of the research team.

"We're showing that techniques exist today to compute a nuclear reaction from the underlying theory of strong interactions," Savage said. "It is a simple reaction in terms of neutrons and protons, but it is a start."

In fact, it is enough for theoretical physicists to begin tackling questions such as how the universe might be different if quarks were slightly lighter or heavier than they actually are. The work also will let researchers perform calculations that could, for instance, provide clearer understanding of what the interior of a body such as a neutron star looks like.

"This will help us to understand how finely tuned the universe is," Savage said. "If you change the values of the fundamental constants of nature, would the universe still produce stars? Or humans?"

The work is described in a paper published July 7 in Physical Review Letters. Other authors are Silas Beane, an assistant professor of physics at the University of New Hampshire; Paulo Bedaque, an assistant professor of physics at the University of Maryland; and Konstantinos Orginos, an assistant professor of physics at the College of William and Mary in Virginia and a member of the theory group at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility in Virginia. Beane also is affiliated with the Jefferson facility. The work was paid for in part by grants from the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation.

Having a framework to calculate nuclear interactions in terms of quarks and gluons paves the way for reaching a greater understanding of the nature of the universe, particularly as supercomputers become increasingly powerful in the coming years, Savage said.

"We can start to explore how the structure of nuclei would change if the quark masses differed from the values found in nature," he said. "We hope we can determine if the quark masses in nature, or values very close to them, are required for carbon-based life to exist in our universe, or if any old quark masses would do."

Source: University of Washington

[bschaeffer]

A strong force is necessary because the shell model is based on the hypothesis that the nucleons are orbiting like the electrons in the atom. Unfortunately, the nucleus having no nucleus, this is highly improbable. Without this hypothesis, the electromagnetic interaction works fine, at least for the deuteron.

My link

The consequence is that the nuclear binding energy order of magnitude is given by the formula αm_pc² where m_p which is 1/137 of the mass, not far from the usually evaluated value of 1% . The atomic binding energy is given by the Hartree constant (twice the Rydberg constant of the Bohr theory of the atom) α²m_ec². Therefore, the nuclear over chemical energies ratio is

m_p/m_e/α = 1836 x 137 = 250,000 of the same order of magnitude as the million times usually evaluated value for this ratio.

This theory has been recently published : J Fusion Energy (2011) 30 :377-381

Attached thumbnail(s)

• 

[Rade]

bschaeffer, on 04 December 2011 - 04:09 AM, said:

A strong force is necessary because the shell model is based on the hypothesis that the nucleons are orbiting like the electrons in the atom. Unfortunately, the nucleus having no nucleus, this is highly improbable. Without this hypothesis, the electromagnetic interaction works fine, at least for the deuteron.

My link

So, just so I am clear, are you claiming that the shell model and strong-force is not needed to explain binding between proton and neutron within the deuteron, H-2 [NP] ?

If yes, can you extent your model to the binding of the stable Helium-3 isotope [PNP], which has one stable free [P] added to the stable deuteron ? I mean, can you also then make a claim that the shell model and strong-force is not needed to explain the interactions that result in stable He-3 isotope [PNP] (perhaps you have not given this thought, but is it possible using your model approach and can you work out the details ?).

Next, if you can apply your model to He-3 [PNP], it seems possible you could also apply it to the mirror 3-mass isotope, the unstable hydrogen-3 or triton [NPN]. In this case, we add an unstable free neutron [N] to the stable deuteron. So, does your model also apply to H-3 [NPN] isotope and thus we do not need shell model and strong force to explain it either ?

Finally, if all the above holds for your model, and we do not need shell model to explain interactions within deuterium [NP], He-3 [PNP], or H-3 [NPN], then does it make sense that we might need shell model and strong force interactions to explain how various combination of the three fundamental [NP],[PNP],[NPN] resonating group structures could bind to each other to form stable isotopes (as was proposed by Dr. John Wheeler in 1937 [Phy Rev 52:1107] but seems to have been forgotten in modern times by nuclear physicists, a shame, given that John Wheeler holds a Nobel Prize in physics).

Any comments on the above (pro or con) greatly appreciated.

[bschaeffer]

Rade, on 17 January 2012 - 08:07 AM, said:

So, just so I am clear, are you claiming that the shell model and strong-force is not needed to explain binding between proton and neutron within the deuteron, H-2 [NP] ?

If yes, can you extent your model to the binding of the stable Helium-3 isotope [PNP], which has one stable free [P] added to the stable deuteron ? I mean, can you also then make a claim that the shell model and strong-force is not needed to explain the interactions that result in stable He-3 isotope [PNP] (perhaps you have not given this thought, but is it possible using your model approach and can you work out the details ?).

Next, if you can apply your model to He-3 [PNP], it seems possible you could also apply it to the mirror 3-mass isotope, the unstable hydrogen-3 or triton [NPN]. In this case, we add an unstable free neutron [N] to the stable deuteron. So, does your model also apply to H-3 [NPN] isotope and thus we do not need shell model and strong force to explain it either ?

Finally, if all the above holds for your model, and we do not need shell model to explain interactions within deuterium [NP], He-3 [PNP], or H-3 [NPN], then does it make sense that we might need shell model and strong force interactions to explain how various combination of the three fundamental [NP],[PNP],[NPN] resonating group structures could bind to each other to form stable isotopes (as was proposed by Dr. John Wheeler in 1937 [Phy Rev 52:1107] but seems to have been forgotten in modern times by nuclear physicists, a shame, given that John Wheeler holds a Nobel Prize in physics).

Any comments on the above (pro or con) greatly appreciated.

Yes I have calculated 3H and 3He. The presentation attached explains my approach

Attached File(s)

•  Présentation.pdf (893.3K)
  Number of downloads: 2

[HydrogenBond]

If you think about it logically, the strong nuclear force is the closest force to gravity in terms of a direct connection. For example, the gravitational force will induce the strong force to create fusion. Fusion, in turn, will result in mass burn, thereby directly impacting mass/gravity. The heat given off, due to mass burn, cause the mass density to fluff, so space-time expands. The more strong force induced and therefore the higher the fusion rate, the more powerful the space-time reversal.