This paper was announced to many universities around the world ( January 2014)

By prof. LEFTERIS KALIAMBOS (Λευτέρης Καλιαμπός) T. E. Institute of Larissa Greece

** **

It is well-known that the enormous success of the Bohr model (1913) and the Schrodinger equation in three dimensions (1926) in revealing the atomic structure is due to the application of the well-established laws of electromagnetism. However after the discovery of the assumed uncharged neutron (1932) theoretical physicists like Heisenberg (1932), Yukawa (1935) and Gell-Mann (1973) abandoned the natural laws of force in favor of various fallacious theories based on invalid fields and Einstein’s relativity. Thus in the "Nuclear force-Wikipedia" one reads:

“The nuclear force is now understood as a residual effect of the even more powerful strong force, or strong interaction, which is the attractive force that binds particles called quarks together, to form the nucleons themselves. This more powerful force is mediated by particles called gluons, which are a type of gauge boson. Gluons hold quarks together with a force like that of electric charge, but of far greater power. The concept of a nuclear force was first quantitatively constructed in 1934, shortly after the discovery of the neutron revealed that atomic nuclei were made of protons and neutrons, held together by an attractive force. The nuclear force at that time was conceived to be transmitted by particles called mesons, which were predicted in theory before being discovered in 1947. In the 1970s, further understanding revealed these mesons to be combinations of quarks and gluons, transmitted between nucleons that themselves were made of quarks and gluons. This new model allowed the strong forces that held nucleons together, to be felt in neighboring nucleons, as residual strong forces.”

Under this PHYSICS CRISIS I presented at the international conference “Frontiers of fundamental physics” (1993) my paper ‘Impact of Maxwell’s equation of displacement current on electromagnetic laws and comparison of the Maxwellian waves with our model of dipolic particles ”. In that paper I showed that LAWS AND EXPERIMENTS INVALIDATE FIELDS AND RELATIVITY .

Surprisingly at the same time in Larissa when I analyzed carefully the experiments of the magnetic moments in protons and neutrons I found that considerable charge distributions in protons and neutrons are able to reveal the nuclear force and nuclear structure by reviving the natural laws of electric and magnetic forces acting at a distance. Whereas the two contradicting theories of mesons and of the Quantum Chromodynamics proposed by Yukawa and Gell-Mann respectively provide fallacious force carriers (mesons) or color forces between false massless gluons which cannot lead to nuclear structure. Although my new discovery of considerable charge distributions in nucleons revealed the nuclear structure by using not the theories but the well-established laws of nature unfortunately these novel ideas met at first much skepticism and occasionally overt resistance.

The opposition was very strong when I met privately some theoretical physicists of nuclear physics at the Aristotelian University for explaining the real nuclear force and the nuclear structure based not on the invalid theories of relativity and of the wrong Standard Model but on natural laws of electric and magnetic forces acting at a distance. Unfortunately it seems to be not surprising, because in the history of physics one sees that new fundamental physics concepts many times found invariably difficulties in being accepted by the majority, no matter how well formulated and important they could be. While the ruling of the majorities is a fundamental feature of every democracy, it does not apply to science where the great steps forward have always been made by isolated individuals. This dogmatic hardening under the influence of Maxwell’s fields Einstein’s relativity and the fallacious theories of the Standard Model risks today to make the scientific majorities impenetrable to a critical understanding of my developedFUNDAMENTAL PHYSICS CONCEPTS based on the well-established laws of nature.

Nevertheless after several years from the publication of my paper NUCLEAR STRUCTURE IS GOVERNED BY THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF ELECTROMAGNETISM in Ind. J. Th. Phys. (2003) today it is well-known that the considerable charge distributions in nucleons deduced from the experiments of the magnetic moments give very important results invalidating the two different theories of meson and of the Quantum Chromodynamics. For example the nuclear experiments showed that the simple (uud) for proton and the (dud ) for neutron are wrong schemes, because the mass of the discovered quarks by Gell-Mann cannot be compared with the mass of nucleons. Moreover according to my discovery of the Photon-Matter Interaction the hypothetical energy of massless gluons cannot turn into the mass of nucleons. Also such wrong schemes in proton and neutron could not be compared with the deep inelastic scattering and the experiments of the magnetic moments μ for proton and neutron. According to the deep inelastic scattering experiments the fallacious scheme (uud) for proton should give a negative charge (– e/3) at the center surrounded by the positive charge of ( +4e/3) , while Sanders in 1957 for the proton of mass M and spin S found that μ/S = 2.793(e/M). Our detailed analysis of this formula based on laws showed that in proton among 288 quarks there exist 9 extra charged quarks giving negative charge of -q = -5e//3 at the center and positive charge of +Q = +8e/3 along the periphery.

In the same way though Dirac in his wrong theory of relativistic quantum mechanics (1928) proposed that the g-factor of neutron is zero, N. R. Corngold and N. F. Ramsey in 1956 found that in neutron the g-factor is g = -1.913 which means that in neutron among 288 quarks there exist 12 extra charged quarks giving a considerable charge distribution of positive charge +Q = +8e/3 at the center and negative charge -Q = -8e/3 along the periphery.

It is indeed fortunate in the history of nuclear physics that the applications of the well-established electromagnetic laws on such considerable charge distributions in nucleons lead exactly to the nuclear binding and structure, which invalidates not only Einstein’s the so-called mass-energy conservation but also Gell-Mann’s very simple uud and dud quark schemes. Although the spinning quarks of fractional charges at very short distances give very strong attractive electromagnetic forces of laws, Gell-Mann influenced by the fallacious theories of fields and of Einstein’s relativity proposed the hypothetical color forces between fallacious massless gluons leading to various complications of the invalid STRONG INTERACTION which cannot lead to the nuclear structure.

At first using the well-established electromagnetic laws of electromagnetism with forces acting at a distance I tried to compare the g- factor g = 2.793 of Sanders with the hypothetical proton charge distribution of –e/3 and +4e/3 given by Gell-Mann. Surprisingly I found that the scheme (uud) gives a factor g<<2.793 even in case in which the negative charge -q = -e/3 is at the center and the positive charge +Q = +4e/3 is distributed along the periphery of the proton. In fact, our detailed analysis is consistent with g = 2.793 when a negative charge - q = -5e/3 is at the center and a positive charge +Q = +8e/3 is distributed along the periphery. Such a considerable charge distribution means that in proton among a large number of neutral quark triads (dud) there exist 5 down extra charged quarks making a point charge of –q = -5e/3 just at the center of the proton, in accordance with the important experiments of the deep inelastic scattering, while the positive charge of +Q = +8e/3 distributed along the periphery gives the experimental factor g = 2.793 discovered by Sanders.

In my detailed analysis the proton of radius R as a particle spinning with an angular velocity ω behaves like an oblate spheroid with a spin S = tMωR^{2}, where 0.4 < t < 0.5 which characterizes the shape of proton between a sphere and a disk. Note that for a spinning sphere S = 0.4MωR^{2 }while for a spinning disk S = 0.5MωR^{2 }.

On the other hand the contribution of the peripheral charge +Q = +8e/3 to μ ^{ }as a real circular current I is given by

I = Qν = Q(ω/2π). Thus μ = ΙπR^{2} = QνπR^{2} = Q(ω/2π)πR^{2} = Q(ω/2) R^{2} =(8e/3)(ω/2) R^{2}

Then comparing it with the S = tMωR^{2} one arrives at μ/S = 2.793(e/M) when t = 0.47742 .

Similarly to describe the structure of neutron I took into account the experimental symmetry properties of nucleons that the current distributions within the neutron and the proton are quite similar. So a considerable charge distribution analogous to proton was obtained since experiments showed that a negative charge of -Q = -8e/3 is along the periphery while the equal and opposite charge of +Q = + 8e/3 is limited at the center. But for g = -1.913 such a distribution gives a very great t = 0.69693. That is 1 > t > 0.5 characterizing a shape between a ring and a disk. This value is not surprising for an oblate spheroid of neutron, since the mass of the negative charge along the periphery corresponding to the 8 down quarks is greater than the mass of the positive 4 up quarks at the center. Moreover these charge distributions of proton and neutron satisfy the conservation of charge in the bête decay of neutron, while the wrong quark schemes of Gell-Mann lead to complications and suffer from deficiencies. On the other hand the charge distributions of such wrong schemes of uud and dud cannot lead to the nuclear structure and binding, while applications of the well-established laws of electromagnetism on our considerable charge distributions as multiples of extra 9 charged quarks in proton and 12 ones in neutron lead exactly to the real nuclear force and structure .

** **

**ELECTROMAGNETIC INTERACTION OF THE EXTRA CHARGED QUARKS IN NUCLEONS LED TO MY DISCOVERY OF NUCLEAR FORCE AND STRUCTURE, WHILE THE uud AND dud SCHEMES OF GELL-MANN LEAD TO COMPLICATIONS**

Theoretical explanations of atomic, molecular, and solid state phenomena may present formidable mathematical difficulties, but it is at least true that the interactions between the constituent particles are well understood under the applications of the well-established laws of electromagnetism. For these systems the forces the particles exert on each other are entirely of electromagnetic origin. On this basis I found that also in the structure of nuclei the same laws govern the structure since nature works in only one way. It is unfortunate that the discovery of the assumed uncharged neutron for understanding the nuclear structure led to the abandonment of natural laws in favor of various theories of nuclear force and nuclear structure . Even today many nuclear physicists influenced by the wrong Standard Model and by various nuclear models of the nuclear structure do not believe that the fundamental laws of electromagnetism are responsible for the nuclear force and nuclear structure.

According to my discovery of the Photon-Matter Interaction which invalidates Einstein’s mass-energy conservation the energy of massless gluons and the so-called color forces of the Quantum Cromodynamics (Gell-mann,1973) cannot give any information about the charge distribution in nucleons for reviving the well-established laws of electromagnetism. Of course the goal of modern science is to apply the well-established laws governing the nuclear phenomena under my discovery of the considerable charge distributions in nucleons due to the extra 9 charged quarks in proton and 12 ones in neutron. However it was a great difficulty in discussing the problem by using a simple math of the well-established laws of Coulomb and Ampere because at very short distances such considerable charge distributions give compound electromagnetic forces of short range like the dipole-dipole interactions.

Under this condition I worked from 1993 to 2002 in order to formulate a large number of integral equations presented at the 12th Symposium of the Hellenic nuclear physics Society (NCSR “Demokritos”,(2002 ). So in my paper NUCLEAR STRUCTURE IS GOVERNED BY THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF ELECTROMAGNETISM published in Ind J. Th. Phys. (2003) one sees that the distributed fractional charges in the spinning nucleons explain not only the parallel spin of deuteron but also give the radial binding energy of -2.2246 MeV.

Especially using the experimental value of the proton radius (r = 0.88/10^{15} m ) I found that the applications of electromagnetic forces at the shorter distance of 2r give a proton- neutron binding energy equal to the experimental value of -2.2246 MeV.

I found also that according to the electromagnetic laws the negligible motional EMF in the coupling of two deuterons is responsible for the strong proton-neutron bonds in the Helium nucleus with a total antiparallel spin along the spin axis. Of course the radial energy and the very strong axial energy imply a great anisotropy which explains the rapidly increase of the binding energy of deuteron to the binding energy of the Helium nucleus (- 28.29 MeV). In this case the very strong axial bonds of the proton-neutron systems overcomes the repulsions of identical nucleons, because the proton-proton repulsions and neutron – neutron repulsions are directed along the diagonals like the ionic crystals.

Such structures show also that the so-called Pauli principle of electronic configurations is inapplicable in nuclei since the proton-proton and the neutron-neutron repel, while the simplest structure of the deuteron has parallel spin. In fact, the so-called Pauli principle is the result of electromagnetic laws which give always parallel spin in the simple structure of deuteron with attractive electromagnetic forces of short range. Whereas applications of the same laws give antiparallel spin with electromagnetic repulsions between identical nucleons. For example the energy of the uranium fission under a bombardment by neutrons is due not to Einstein’s mass-energy conservation but to the long ranged electric repulsions between protons which overcome the short ranged attractive forces between protons and neutrons. Note that under the fallacious forces of meson theory or the wrong color forces between the false gluons in the wrong (uud) and (dud) schemes in proton and neutron respectively today theoretical physicists in order to explain the very strong binding energy of the Helium nucleus believe that also the systems of proton-proton and neutron-neutron give unknown attractive forces the so-called residual forces of strong interaction.

It is well-known a semiquantitative understanding of the fission process which can be gained from the liquid drop model proposed by Bohr. However under the fallacious theories of Heisenberg (1932) and Yukawa (1935) Bohr could not reveal the real nuclear force of his liquid drop model. On the other hand Yukawa’s meson theory seemed to be valid under the discovery of several masons, but many attempts to fit them into a consistent scheme of nuclear force did not succeed in reproducing quantitatively the known nuclear phenomena. Another serious problem had to do with the proton-proton scattering at high energies which is quite different from the proton-neutron scattering, showing that the so-called hypothesis of charge independence cannot be applied to the scattering data. Nevertheless despite the enormous success of my discovery of the nuclear force due to the well-established laws of electromagnetic forces, today theoretical physicists under the influence of the fallacious strong interaction of the wrong standard model continue to believe that the nuclear force is independent of the fundamental charge-charge interaction including also strong attractive forces of proton-proton and neutron-neutron systems. Of course such wrong ideas cannot lead to the nuclear structure and do much to retard the progress of nuclear physics. In fact, in fission the proton-proton repulsions of long range under the bombardment with neutrons overcome the proton-neutron bonds of short range, while in neutron stars the long ranged gravitational attraction overcomes the short-ranged neutron-neutron electromagnetic repulsions.

Therefore in the absence of a realistic nuclear force the most important nuclear structure models like the liquid drop, the Fermi gas, the nuclear shell, and the collective model, lead to complications. On the other hand the analysis of the deuteron, alone, based on a hypothetical potential did not provide the desired information about the force of the simplest proton-neutron structure. Of course the hypothetical color forces proposed by Gell-Mann cannot provide any framework for quantitative measurements based on laws.

Here I clear that according to my discovery of the nuclear force due to the application of the well-established laws of nature the magic numbers of nuclei are related to the special shapes of very stable arrangements in widely different groups. For example the simplest magic nucleus the He-4 of the following diagrams belongs to the group of the two-dimensional structure. Whereas the first parallelepiped is un unstable nucleus because the proton-proton and neutron-neutron repulsions overcome the proton-neutron bonds. Though the O-16 belongs to the group of parallelepipeds, it is a very stable nucleus because the p-n bonds overcome the p-p and n-n repulsions. It is of of interest to note that the heaviest magic nucleus, the Pb-208, belongs to another group of orthorhombic systems in which the extra neutrons make extra n-p bonds for giving u stable nucleus. (See my STRUCTURE OF MAGIC NUCLEI ).