Post N. 118
This time I want to speak about the strong nuclear interaction. This is a force commonly reckoned among the four fundamental interactions in particle physics. It goes hands in hands with electromagnetism, weak interaction, and gravitation. It is the force that holds most ordinary matter together and binds neutrons and protons to create the atomic nuclei. The strong force field energy stays on the basis of most of the mass of a common proton or neutron. This was, since the beginning, the most common definition of this force.
After this necessary introduction, I want to consider my own new model. As already shown, a positive charge, i.e. a proton, originates from a scarcity of etherons. This means that a vortex with a centrifugal movement is acting inside.
Correcting a past affirmation
Now, I want to correct something I said in a previous post. It is necessary because, while going on, I achieve a better understanding. This is a totally new and unknown field. Consequently, errors are sometimes unavoidable. It is important to keep aware of the possibility of getting mistaken and correct the theory, when necessary.
As I started to consider this subject, from the very beginning, I kept on speaking of charges as entities originated by scarcity or abundance of etherons. This different concentration (if compared with the average distribution of etherons in the space) is maintained by a vortex. This is the force that, while spinning, can expel or attract the etherons from or toward the center.
Not just a single vortex in the atom
One of the misinterpretations I have made at the beginning was to consider the atom as formed by a single vortex. Due to its shape and to the conservation of the momentum, it has to produce a scarcity of etherons in the center and an abundance in the external part. Since we know that in the atom center there is a positive charge, I concluded that the positive charge had to be made by a scarcity of etherons.
Then I went on by considering the electric and magnetic field. They are the result of an electric charge that is moving in the space, positive or negative. So I kept hurrying toward the end. My conclusion was that the single charge that produces the electromagnetic field could only be kept in place by a vortex in the ether.
Vortexes rotating in a different manner
This is true for both the positive and negative charges, only the vortexes are two and will rotate in a different manner. These two vortexes then will attract, overlap and unite to form an atom made of the positive and negative charges. The initial hypothesis of an atom formed by a single vortex cannot be accepted. The atom is formed by many overlapping vortexes.
A reexamination needed
These are the reasons why I have to check the situation again. I have to look for some further evidence. Is the positive charge the real consequence of the scarcity of etherons? Will the negative one be the result of the abundance of them? This reexamination will be necessary because my first conclusion was based on a different hypothesis. Then I was taking into account only a single vortex atom. Since the premises are changing, I have to reconsider the matter again.
A Crookes tube
In the tube of Crookes, some electron is ripped off from the atoms of the electrode. What kind of device is this? I’ll try to explain briefly for the readers needing some short recollection.
A Crookes tube is an early experimental electrical discharge tube, with partial vacuum, invented by English physicist William Crookes in which cathode rays, streams of electrons, were discovered. When a high voltage is applied between the electrodes, cathode rays(electrons) are projected in straight lines from the cathode. (Wikipedia)
With a metal cross inside the tube, a sharp shadow could be seen on the glowing walls, proving that the ‘rays’ traveled in straight lines from the cathode
It was used by Crookes and others to discover the properties of cathode rays, culminating in J.J. Thomson‘s 1897 identification of cathode rays as negatively charged particles, which were later named electrons. Crookes tubes are now used only for demonstrating cathode rays. This is what Wikipedia and scientists say.
Initially, I said that the electrons in the Crookes tube are etherons, simply etherons, but is it correct?
There is a clear motion of particles from the negative cathode toward the positive anode. The evidence comes from the fact that you can see fluorescence in the part of the tube opposite to the cathode, due to the cathodic rays. What happens in the tube?
Due to the difference of potential created by the battery, the negative charges existing in the circuit accumulate. Where? In the cathode plate. On the other hand, all positive ions accumulate in the anode plate. When the negative and positive charges reach their respective plates, they stop there. This happens because they can’t move in the air gap.
How scarcity and abundance keep on existing
However, the charges create an electric field in this gap, i.e. an etheron wind. This is due to the fact that, from one side, charges expel etherons, while on the other side they attract etherons. We know that this wind flows from the cathode to the anode but also from the scarcity to the abundance. The aim is to maintain both the scarcity and the abundance.
The electron is thus in the scarcity side, while the positive ions are in the abundance side. Only this way we have a motion of particles from the cathode toward the anode. Similarly, we can notice the fluorescence on the other side of the cathode. The fluorescence is due to etherons hitting the fluorescent substances in the tube. This way they will move the electrons that, when returning in their position, release the energy they had received before.
Like a drop affected by the flow of a river
Someone could wonder how the etherons moving in the tube deviated if a magnetic field is approached the tube. The answer is simple. That’s true. A single etheron cannot create a field but the idea is that it stays under the field influence. Like a drop is affected by the flow of a river, an etheron is affected by the magnetic field engendered by a magnet set in the neighborhood.
The proton as an abundance of electrons.
So, in my opinion, it seems quite clear the fact that the proton is an abundance of electrons. Consequently, you can think of the proton like a vacuum cleaner that sucks etherons from the exterior. A proton, due to the electric field that it creates, pushes away the other protons. But we know that a bigger atom contains more than one single proton. How can these protons stay near one to the other without repelling? Something, it gets even more clear, will attract them and keep them in their position, in the nucleus of the atom.
The definition of a new physical force
In 1935 the Japanese physicist Hideki Yukawa introduced the definition of a new kind of force. It is the force keeping united protons in the nucleus. The physicist called this force “strong nuclear force”. It is a much stronger force than the electromagnetic force and it works keeping together the protons.
It is a force that acts strongly in the very short distances because immediately when a proton is out of the nucleus, it is repelled away. This force acts only over distances of the order of 10-15 m, corresponding with the dimensions of the nucleus of the atom.
The weaker electromagnetic force
The scientific quantum explanation of the weaker electromagnetic force is a non-uniform distribution of virtual photons. When I have read this explanation in a book of physics, I have jumped on my chair. It is an explanation very similar to the one I have introduced. You have only to notice that the photons are in reality etherons that, by concentrating in a non-uniform way, create the electromagnetic field.
Mesons are not necessary
The strong nuclear force, on the other hand, originates, according to science, by the action of particles called mesons. Electromagnetic interaction means that the electric charges emit or absorb virtual photons. Accordingly, protons should have a nuclear charge and should absorb or emit virtual mesons. The mechanism should be the same for the virtual photons and the virtual mesons.
Till now, in the model I’m considering, I have introduced only one particle, the etheron and this has been enough to explain the gravity, the magnetic field, and the electric field. What about the stronger nuclear force? The hypothesis I want to make is that it is not necessary to introduce any other particle like the mesons.
I’m convinced that the ether vortex is enough. When we have an atom with more than one proton the proximity of the protons is guaranteed by the overlap and concentricity of the vortexes. The rotation of the vortexes guarantees the continuous concentricity and they can’t escape one from the other. The vortex of ether is responsible for the stronger nuclear interaction. In the next article, I will show another application of this idea. Then I’ll start thinking of the weaker nuclear force.