WRONG AND CORRECT THEORIES IN PHYSICS

CORRECT THEORIES ARE BASED ON GENERAL CONCLUSIONS LEADING  TO APPLICATIONS  OF  NATURAL  LAWS  WHILE  WRONG THEORIES LIKE MAXWELL’S  FIELDS  EINSTEIN’S RELATIVITY AND  THE STANDARD MODEL  STARTING FROM FALSE ASSUMPTIONS LED TO COMPLICATED MATHEMATICS WHICH  RETARDED THE PROGRESS OF PHYSICS.     

By Prof. L. Kaliambos T.E. Institute of Larissa, Greece.

This scientific article was announced to many universities around the world. Writing in Google Scholar “Kaliambos” one can see my papers “Impact of Maxwell’s…electromagnetism” and “Nuclear structure… electromagnetism” which solve the crisis of modern physics.

WHY GEOCENTRIC THEORY RETARDED THE PROGRESS OF PHYSICS

In the early history of physical science the Greek philosophers and mathematicians were the first who attempted to reduce the apparently chaotic motions of the stars, Sun, Moon, and planets to an orderly system under a deductive reasoning. Note that Greek thinkers tended to lay down axiomatic principles from which they logically deduced a set of conclusions. The best example of this procedure is the successful Euclidian geometry. However despite the enormous success of  mathematics the Greek thinkers  were not able to provide a satisfactory explanation of planetary motions for understanding the physical universe, because the simple observations lead to the fallacious hypothesis that there are fixed stars which move through  the night as if they were  attached to a rotating invisible bowl (celestial sphere).  For the Sun, the Moon, and the planets which appeared to wander across the sky tracing perplexingly irregular figures among the “fixed stars” of the celestial sphere, Plato’s (424-348) student Eudoxus (410-355) using Plato’s axiom of uniform circular motions thought that the universe works with 26 hypothetical concentric spheres.

Of course the task of scientists is not to make many assumptions in order to fit the data of a hypothesis but to look for a plausible explanation of how nature works under the applications of natural laws.  Such a number of complications occurred because the truth of Plato’s axiom was not measured carefully by additional observations. Nevertheless consider this sentence from Plato’s  Phaedon:  “This was the method I adopted: I first assumed some  principle, which I judged to be the stronger, and then I affirmed  as true whatever seemed to agree with this, whether relating to the cause or to anything else;  and that which disagreed I regarded as untrue”.

Then Aristotle postulated that heavens are constructed from his fallacious ether which had its own natural circular motion. He also postulated that outside the largest sphere of stars was the divine “prime mover” turning the starry spheres at regular rates. Thus the use of Plato’s circles was not merely a mathematical convenience: it became a philosophical necessity which did much to retard the progress of physics. After such difficulties the large number of Aristotelian assumptions were soon abandoned in favor of the Ptolemaic system developed by Hipparchus, Apollonius and Ptolemy who added another large number of epicycles which also could not lead to any discovery of laws.

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS OF HELIOCENTRIC IDEAS TAKEN FROM ASTRONOMICAL MEASURMENTS  LED   TO THE DISCOVERY OF LAWS

Despite the philosophical doctrines  that the natural place of Earth is the center of the universe Aristarchus (310-230),  in his surviving work “On the  Sizes and Distances of the Sun and Moon “ using correct geometry estimated that the size of the Sun is much greater than the size of the Earth measured by Eratosthenes ( 273-192). Since the problem of planetary motions persisted Aristarchus perhaps influenced by the work of Heraclides (390-310) concluded that it made more sense for the Earth to be moving than for the huge Sun to be moving around it.

That is, Plato’s geocentric principle or Aristotelian philosophical necessity should be changed under the detailed observations based on measurable phenomena. However adherence to the geocentric model was not only the traditional idea of an immovable Earth in the center of the universe but also the stellar parallax which was not detected until the 19th century. Fortunately as the centuries had passed it was found that Ptolemy’s more than 70 epicycles could not explain correctly the carefully observed positions of celestial objects. Under this condition Copernicus (1543) revived the heliocentric system of Aristarchus. Then Kepler using the detailed observations of Brahe (1546-1601) discovered his three empirical laws (1609, 1619) and finally Newton in his Principia  (1687) by means of his law of gravitaty interpreted Kepler’s  empirical laws.  In other words the heliocentric theory led to Newton’s discovery of the two characteristic properties of mass, the gravity and the Inertia, which solve the problem of planetary motions under the application of natural laws involving forces acting at a distance.

DIPOLIC PHOTONS LEAD TO THE QUANTUM DYNAMICS WHILE WRONG  MAXWELL’S FIELDS LEAD TO THE FALLACIOUS RELETIVITY OF EINSTEIN

Around 1700 A.D. a set of simple experiments for understanding the nature of light led also to the development of two different theories like the pulse theory of Huygens (1690) and the corpuscular theory of Newton (1704). As in the case of the simple celestial observations which led to the geocentric theory, Huygens, based on simple mechanical waves propagated through a medium, suggested that light pulses are propagated through an immobile ether, which is against Newton’s principle of relativity deduced from his laws. Later Young (1804) under his experiments of the interference of light and Maxwell in his theory of self propagating fields (1865) strongly supported the ether, though Faraday in 1847 for interpreting his effect proposed that light was a high-frequency electromagnetic vibration even in the absence of a medium such as the ether. Ironically it was Newton who suggested that light might have to be somehow assigned also periodic properties in order to account for the phenomena of colors.       

Meanwhile the laws of Coulomb (1785) and Ampere (1820) involving electric (Fe) and Magnetic (Fm) forces acting at a distance were unified by Weber (1856) who found experimentally that K/k = c2 where c is the speed of light. For example using a dipole of our model of dipolic particles or dipolic photons with +q and –q moving at u with its dipole axis r perpendicular to u  one can write the following simple relations.  

Fe = Kq2/r2   and   Fm = kq2u2/r2.   Therefore    Fe/Fm = c2/u2

Thus for u = c we get Fe = Fm. Moreover the photon behaves as moving dipole providing time-varying Ey/Bz = c. Note that when the center of the dipole meets a point P with a charge Q =1 we get electromagnetic forces on Q by writing the equations in terms of fields as

Ey = 8Kq/r2 and Bz = 8kqc/r2.  Thus Ey/Bz = c.

For example according to the definition of the electric field, the Ey  cannot exist without the charges q and –q  and the charge Q =1.

This situation can be seen also in the system of real current circuits involving capacitance and inductance. Equating the stored electric and magnetic energies in fields per unit volume we write

εoE2/2  = B2/2μο   or   E2/B2 = 1/εομο. = c2    or E/B = c

However Maxwell in order to interpret the Faraday effect recognized that the experiments of Weber (K/k =1/εομο = c2) lead to E/B = c. Thus he applied the induction law and the Ampere law by using not real fields and currents. For example in the application of the induction law

ε = (dB/dt)A      and the Ampere law     B2πr =  μοΙ

Maxwell introduced a fallacious electric field E, while the above stored magnetic energy is due to magnetic force and only the electric stored energy in the capacitance is due to electric force. Also in the application of the Ampere law he used a misleading displacement current Id in order to get the correct relation E/B = c as follows:

E2πr =(dB/dt)A    and   B2πr = μοId .  Since Id =dQ/dt and dQ = dEεοA

one gets  EdE/BdB = 1/εομο  or   0.5E2/0.5B2 = c2    or E/B =c

Note that to test Maxwell’s hypothesis which led to sophisticated equations under the application of correct mathematics, the American physicists French and Tessman in 1963 showed experimentally that  Id  (displacement current) involves misconceptions.

Of course this fallacious concept of self propagating fields which turns back to the deductive reasoning of Greek philosophers was based on the wrong ether of Huygens and on the fallacious concept of fields introduced by Faraday in 1832. It is well-known that Faraday imagined that the free space (vacuum) surrounding the magnets and coils was in a state of tension, like stretched rubber bands which led to the incorrect development of wrong general relativity.  Note that the original expression of Coulomb, involved no mention of the field which later (for the simplification of problems) was introduced as a force per unit charge acting at a distance.  However in the field formulation of Faraday and Maxwell one charge was thought of as producing a field everywhere in space causing the force on a test charge. A second fallacious idea of Maxwell complicated more the original ideas of electromagnetism, because in his formulation of equations emphasizes the fact that this is a property of space and does not depend on the presence of charges of a conductor. That is, he accepted not only fields produced by charges but also imagined traveling fields without charges. One can see this in Maxwell’s following paragraph:  “The general equations are next applied to the case of a magnetic disturbance propagated through a non conducting field…”   Moreover third strange idea was developed that the Coulomb force cannot act at a distance but it is transmitted via the electric field E. For example in the Coulomb law Fe = KQq/r2 and by the definition E = Fe/q. So E = KQ/r2. That is, the force Fe is transmitted via the same force per unit charge. This idea did much to retard the progress of physics, because later Feynman (Nobel prize, 1965) in his theory of electrodynamics proposed that the force Fe is transmitted via virtual photons. In fact, in the electron- proton interaction of the Bohr model the photon is generated after the quantum jump. Thus the photon is not a force carrier but an energy carrier or a mass carrier after the interaction at a distance. Also this wrong idea led to the false ideas of strong and weak interactions. For example the heavy boson W could not be a force carrier of the neutrino-quark interaction but an energy carrier after the decay of the top quark.  Nevertheless Maxwell’s  excellent mathematical sets of mental images led physicists to believe  that his theory stands as one of man’s greatest intellectual achievements.   

Under such excellent equations Einstein in his photon theory (1905) begins by paying tribute to the wide usefulness of Maxwell’s theory; it “has proved itself excellently suited for the description of purely optical phenomena and will probably never be replaced by another theory”. Also Planck himself was far from pleased with Einstein’s photons and by its acceptance he wrote in 1910: “the theory of light would be thrown back by centuries”.  

On the other hand the inconvenience of heaving to deal with photons was very real, because they represent only bundles of energy hν without having mass. So they differ fundamentally from the Newtonian particles which contain gravitational and inertial properties. We see this in Newton’s first “Query” in Optics: “Do not bodies act upon Light at a distance and by their action bend its rays and is not this action strongest at the least distance?”. In 1801 just a few years before the experiments of Young and Fresnel the German von Soldner computed the trajectory of Newton’s particle of light that passes close to the Sun and was able to answer Newton’s query.

Here we see that for all these properties of light related to gravity, electromagnetism, and to the quanta of energy, physicists formulated different limited theories, while nature works in only one way. Taking into account Newton’s idea that the polarization of light could be explained if the ray of light is a stream of rectangular particles we emphasize that the faraday effect can be explain if light consists of moving dipoles having variable mass and variable size because in Einstein’s theory they have constant angular momentum h/2π. So they behave like spinning dancers who provide energies of rotation analogous to the frequency of rotation.

Therefore in 1993 I developed the model of dipolic particles or dipolic photons because a fruitful theory correlates many separate facts which must lead to applications of natural laws. We emphasize that the task of science is to penetrate beyond the immediate and visible to the unseen and thereby to place the visible into a new larger context. It is a conceptual scheme in order to explain not a limited number of experiments but all the observed phenomena and the relationships bringing together into one structure of general conclusions under the applications of natural laws. In this direction I took into account Newton’s following paragraph of his optics: “This analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the conclusions but such as taken from Experiments or other certain Truths”.           

Now a number of important experiments should provide crucial tests between the dipolic photons and the theories of Huygens, Faraday, Maxwell, Planck, and Einstein. In 1887 Hertz produced electromagnetic radiation and discovered the photoelectric effect. Thus studying the excellent equations of Maxwell he believed that confirmed his theory, while his discovery of the photoelectric effect led to the development of Einstein’s photon theory. In fact Hertz produced the dipolic photons of very small mass m =hν/c2 (much more smaller than the electron mass) which provide time varying Ey/Bz = c. In the same year Michelson and Morley performed a delicate experiment and found that the medium of ether cannot exist. So their results invalidated the theory of Huygens and Maxwell in favor of particles moving in free space.

Sixteen years later Nichols and Hull found experimentally the well-known relation dw/dp = c of the absorption of light. Using the dipolic photons moving with the constant speed c we apply the second law of Newton dp = cdm and get   dw/dm = c2. This formula is very important since it explains the experiments of Kaufmann (1901-1903) in which the mass Mo increases to mass M at a velocity u according to the relation

M2/Mo2 = c2/(c2-u2)  

Here we see that the electron before the absorption of energy and mass had a mass Mo. Then it had a greater mass M after the absorption. That is, the so-called rest mass is the mass of a stationary body in a moving reference frame before of the absorption of energy and mass. So under the quantum dynamics differentiating the above equation we get

2M c2dM  = 2Mu2dM +2u M2du

Or  u(udM + Mdu)/dM = c2      or  dW/dM = c2

Note that during the absorption of energy and mass the kinetic energy dW  equals the  u(udM + Mdu)  as given by applying Newton’s second law as

dW = [d(Mu)/dt]ds = u(udM + Mdu)

On the other hand we discovered that a dipolic photon gives its energy and mass hν/m to a particle and increases the mass and the energy of non conservative forces as hν/m = dw/dm = c2. Such an energy is absorbed also by the electron according to the relation

dw/dm = dW/dM = c2

Moreover using the electromagnetic interaction of dipolic photons with the charge –e of an electron we get the same equations

Ey(-e)dy = dW = hν   and Bz(-e)dy = Fmdt = dP = cdM

Since    Ey/Bz = c     we get    hν/m  = dW/dM = c2

This is our principle of “Photon-Matter Transformation”, due to the quantum dynamics. (See in Google “Photon –Matter Transformation”). That is, the increase of mass is not a kinematic situation but it is due to the quantum dynamics, which is consistent with the well-known  separated  conservation laws of mass and energy, because energy cannot be converted into mass.  Note that the equivalent “Matter-Photon Transformation” invalidates the special relativity. Moreover the acceleration of electrons in Kaufmann’s experiments is due to the absorptions of energies with non conservative forces, since such energies are due also to the absorptions of dipolic photons.   

WHY THE EXPERIMENTS OF ATOMIC PHYSICS INVALIDATE THE THEORY OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY  

The wrong ether of the invalid Maxwell’s fields which led to the development of the special relativity should be similar to the situation of an opened railway that moves with respect to the air. Then the speed measurement for sound or for light waves would be affected. In the Michelson experiment the time T required for the round trip along the length L parallel to the Earth’s velocity u through the ether is given by

T  = L/(c-u) + L/(c+u) = 2Lc/(c2 – u2)  

Whereas the time To for the perpendicular length Lo is given by

To  = 2Lo /(c2-u2)0.5 . Thus for L= Lo one gets the simple relation

T/To = c/(c2-u2)0.5 .  That is  T/To >1.

But the experiment showed that T/To =1  which means that u = 0 . That is,  the ether cannot exist. Of course this fact invalidates Maxwell’s ideas and confirms both Newton’s principle of relativity and his corpuscles.

However despite the confirmation of Newton’s principle of relativity, Lorentz did not reject the ether and by using the same correct mathematics of Michelson proposed the following length contraction

2Lc/(c2-u2) = 2Lo(c2-u2)0.5 . So  L/Lo = (c2-u2 )0.5/c of his transformation.

Then in 1904 in order to explain the  Kaufmann experiment in his model proposed arbitrarily the analogous relation M/Mo = c/(c2-u2)0.5 . So he suggested that as a result of motion through the ether the mass of the electron increases from Mo to M , though Kaufmann himself interpreted his results as a confirmation of Abraham’s theory (1902) . It is of interest to note that after the development of Maxwell’s theory many physicists like Thomson (1881), Heaviside (1888), Searle (1896), Wien (1900),  and Abraham (1902), have recognized that the mass of a body in motion is increased by assuming that electromagnetic fields behave as if they add an “electromagnetic mass”.  That is, they predicted the mass of dipolic photons, giving off its mass and its energy to particles of rest mass.

Unfortunately Einstein’s relativity (1905) results in the same length contraction of Lorentz. So his error was dominant, because he replaced the ether by the vacuum with strange properties. Einstein in his book “The evolution of physics” emphasizes that the free space is responsible for the propagation of light and we may use the word “ether” in order to express this property of space. In the absence of detailed knowledge about the increase of the electron mass, which is due to the absorption of photon mass, he attributed this situation to the relative motion of the particle with respect to a randomly moving observer, which violates the conservation law of mass, though many physicists prior to 1905 proposed a dynamical situation by introducing the “electromagnetic mass”, which is consistent with the conservation law of mass.

Einstein perhaps recognized his errors when in 1924 wrote:  “According to special relativity the ether remains still absolute, because its influence of the inertia of bodies…is independent of every kind of physical influence”. Of course this paragraph is against Newton’s principle of relativity, since ether was assumed as an absolutely immobile medium.  The first significant error of Einstein appears in the opening paragraph of his theory, since he pointed out that when the magnet is in motion and the conductor at rest there arises in the neighborhood of the magnet an electric field, while all experiments of the motional emf showed that the induction law is consistent with the law of the magnetic force on a moving charge. For his wrong assumptions see our papers in Google “EINSTEIN’S WRONG ASSUMPTIONS IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY” and “INVALIDITY OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY”. In our papers we showed also that Einstein’s “Mass-energy conservation” is invalid. For example the energy 2W of the charge-charge interaction between an electron and a positron is transformed into the energy 2hν of two generated photons and during this transformation the mass 2Mo of the electron and the positron is transformed into the mass 2m of two photons according to the relation

   2W/2Mo = 2hν/2m = c2.  (Matter – Photon Transformation)

That is, energy conservation and mass conservation are separated, because energy cannot be converted into mass.

Also Einstein’s wrong idea that in nature cannot be velocities greater than the speed of light did much to retard the progress of physics. Note that all spinning particles like electrons, positrons, neutrinos, antineutrinos, and the quarks in nucleons have peripheral velocities greater than the speed of light, which give stronger magnetic attractions than the electric repulsions. For example this fact explains the coupling of two-electron orbitals in atoms and molecules. Historically the discovery of the electron spin by Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit  (1925), under the influence of Einstein’s special relativity, met opposition  at the very beginning from many physicists ( including Pauli), since the electron spin compared with the small electron mass and the small size  gives an enormous peripheral velocity greater than the speed of light.    

Under these conditions I tried to look for experiments of atomic physics able to invalidate the special relativity. Such experiments are those of the well-known mass defect which was found in experiments of nuclear binding after the discovery of neutron (1932). Historically like Einstein’s theory of the photoelectric effect (1905), Bohr’s model (1913) describes the moving electron around the nucleus in the hydrogen atom after a liberation of an electromagnetic energy.

Studying carefully the Bohr model  we revealed that the potential energy (measured in eV)  is  Ke/r = 27.2  eV  So this energy of the electron-proton system is transformed into the kinetic one of the same 27.2 eV,  and during the transformation the rest mass Mo of the electron remains constant, because there is not any absorption of photons. However under Bohr’s  quantum jump the electron looses the half  energy of 13.6  eV which is transformed into the energy hν = 13.6 eV of a photon, while the rest kinetic energy of 13.6 eV remains as a kinetic energy of the moving electron around the nucleus. Note that during the quantum jump the electron looses also a mass ΔM = 13.6 eV which is very small with respect to the electron mass (Mo = 511 keV).   This is the Photon-Matter Transformation ΔW/ΔΜ = hν/m = c2. Of course in the absence of such a detailed knowledge Einstein did not know that when a potential energy becomes a kinetic one the mass of the particle remains always constant under the absolute space and time of Newton.

It happens also in gravitational fields in which Newton’s laws of gravity are always correct no matter what is the velocity of acceleration, while Einstein believed that after his wrong conclusions Newton’s laws are limited, because his relativity led to the conclusion that an  observer in the reference frame of the nucleus will measure always  greater mass than the rest mass  on electrons moving around the nucleus.

NEWTON’S LAWS AND WRONG GENERAL RELATIVITY

Though the well-established natural laws cannot be replaced by any assumption, Einstein in his general relativity tried to prove again the limitations of Newton’s laws. It is well-known that Newton for formulating his universal law of gravity and his laws of motion was very successful in using the concepts of mass, momentum, inertia, force, centripetal and centrifugal force and absolute time and space. Moreover for any deeper explanation of the cause of his universal gravitational force acting at a distance he simply stated: “I do not feign any hypotheses… To us it is enough that gravity does really exist and act according to the laws which we have explained and abundantly serves to account for all the motions of the celestial bodies and of our sea” .    

However in the absence of a detailed knowledge Einstein in his special and general relativity assumed that the well-established laws of Newton are limited. So he replaced the fundamental gravitational force acting at a distance by the wrong ideas of Faraday. Especially he suggested that the presence of matter curves the vacuum and this curvature of vacuum or free space (curvature of nothing) affects the path of free particles (even the path of light pulses).  Historically Newton in his laws used the two fundamental properties of inertial mass and gravitational mass with simple accelerations as a result of his fundamental laws, which lead to the so-called principle of equivalence. It is surprising that both the gravitational and electromagnetic properties of photons interpret the bending of light and the gravitational frequency shift by applying the well-established laws of Newton, Coulomb and Biot-Savart. Under such applications I discovered also the unification of all laws.  On the other hand Mercury’s precession under a detailed knowledge was found that it is due to the Newtonian Sun-tide. See in Google “Unified forces solve the crisis of physics” and “General Relativity or Newtonian Tidal Effects?”  However Einstein did not know the variable mass of his photons and the fact that Mercury’s precession is due to the Newtonian Sun-tides. So he proposed his relativistic accelerations, though for the calculation of the gravitational frequency shift was forced to use the simple Doppler effect of the Newtonian mechanics, since the relativistic idea leads to complications. Moreover he used incorrectly the combination of light pulse and an accelerated observer while in his book “The evolution of physics” he emphasizes that electromagnetic radiation has both energy and mass like the mass of Newton’s corpuscles used by von Soldner in 1801.  Also when Mercury is very close to the Sun the Sun–tide increases the gravity than that predicted by the spherical shapes. The same situation occurred also in nuclear physics since the assumed uncharged neutron and the experimental fact that nuclear forces are of short range led to the abandonment of the well-established electromagnetic laws. See in Google our paper “Frontiers of fundamental physics”.  

NATURAL LAWS OF  QUANTUM MECHANICS  LED TO OUR NEW QUANTUM PHYSICS FOR STUDYING ATOMS AND MOLECULES

After the triumph of the quantum theory many physicists believed that the quantum phenomena led to the end of the well-established natural laws for understanding the atomic and molecular structure. Fortunately Bohr in his model (1913) of the hydrogen atom for describing the orbital motion of the electron applied the well-established second law of Newton Fc = mu2/r (centripetal force) produced by the electric force of the Coulomb law Fe = Ke2/r2. Since Fc = Fe    Bohr used the familiar equation     mu2/r = Ke2/r2

Then comparing this equation with the hypothesis that mur = n(h/2π) he was able (for n =1 ) to reveal the Bohr radius  r = 0.53/1010  m. Thus for hydrogen (H) the ground state energy E measured in eV is given by

E =  - 0.5 Ke/r = -13.6  eV

These results were soon to be incorporated into a unified quantum mechanics of the Schroedinger equations (1926) under the discovery of the wave nature of electrons by de Broglie (1924).  Quantum mechanics was soon recognized to be a satisfactory generalization governing the behavior of the electron in the hydrogen atom and since the theory involved the same well-established laws of Newton and Coulomb it was found to predict the correct detailed values of spectral frequencies and the intensities of spectral lines.

However despite the enormous success of the Schroedinger equations, Heisenberg, Dirac, Pauli, and other physicists abandoned the laws and developed qualitative approaches. Thus, no one had found a satisfactory way to extend the quantum mechanics for explaining the multi-electron atoms and molecules. For example according to the Bohr model the ground state energy E of the two electrons in the hydrogen (H) with two electrons (Z=1) and the helium atom  ( Z =2 ) should be given by

E =  2Z2(-13.6) =  -27.2 eV  for hydrogen   and  - 108.8   eV for helium

But these estimates are significantly different from the experimental value s which are E = -14.35 eV for the hydrogen and E = -79 eV for the helium. These facts demonstrates that the neglected electron-electron positive energies of 12.85 eV for the hydrogen and    29.8  eV for the helium make a large contribution to both the hydrogen and the helium ground state energies. Historically under the general ideas that natural laws could not be applied in the coupling of two electrons and the fact that Einstein’s wrong relativity could not allow any peripheral velocity of the electron spin greater than the speed of light, Heisenberg introduced the hypothesis of the exchange interaction but without any success. He also developed a modification of Bohr’s analysis without using the natural laws for the interaction of two electrons. So it led to many complications. In the same way Thomas-Fermi theory known as “density functional theory” was used with the Hartree-Fock method which led also to complicated mathematics without any success. In this direction Pauli with qualitative approaches introduced the exclusion principle which could not be applied in the simplest nuclear binding of the proton-neutron bond.

Under these difficulties like Bohr I revived the electromagnetic laws by taking into account the fact that the peripheral velocity of spinning electrons is independent of any photon absorption. Thus I applied the basic laws of Coulomb and Biot – Savart on the two interacting   electrons  of mass m and opposite spin to get at a separation r an attractive electromagnetic force Fem     as  

Fem = Fe –Fm = Ke2/r2 –(Ke2/r4)(9h2/16π2m2c2)

This expression tells us that Fm is of short range, and at a separation r<578.8 fm the attractive Fm becomes stronger than the repulsive Fe. This situation leads to a vibration energy Ev = 16.95Z - 4.1. For example for Z=1 (Hydrogen atom with two electrons) Ev =12.85 eV and for Z= 2 (helium atom) Ev = 29.8 eV, which agree with the experimental values.  As a result the total energy of two electrons in helium atom with Z=2 is given by

E = 2Z2(-13.6) + 16.95Z – 4.1  = -79 eV

Here one can see that our new quantum physics solves the problem by using the natural laws in the quantum phenomena. Thus the quantum mechanics of the Schroedinger equations are extended in our new quantum physics for understanding the energies of electrons in many-electron atoms and molecules.  See in Google our paper “New ideas in quantum physics”. Also for more details in many-electron atoms and molecules one can read our published paper “Spin-spin interactions of electrons and also of nucleons create atomic molecular and nuclear structures”.

NUCLEAR EXPERIMENTS INVALIDATE THE STANDARD MODEL WHILE THE REVIVAL OF NATURAL LAWS LEADS TO THE NUCLEAR STRUCTURE

Despite the enormous success of the Bohr model and the Schroedinger equations based on the fundamental electromagnetic laws, Heisenberg, after the discovery of the assumed uncharged neutron in 1932 in order to describe the nuclear force abandoned the basic electromagnetic laws and developed his wrong theory of exchange forces . In the same way Yukawa in 1935 developed the false meson theory and finally Gell-Mann in 1973 developed the wrong Quantum Chromodynamics. Note that both theories supported the wrong idea of the “Strong Interaction” since all nuclear experiments showed that the nuclear force is of short range. On the other hand the discovery of the assumed uncharged antineutrinos in the decay of neutron and the neutrinos in the electron capture led to the same abandonment of natural laws. Thus Fermi in 1934 and Glashow in 1968 developed the wrong theory of the “Weak interaction”.

Unfortunately the Standard Model accepted those wrong theories for nuclear physics, though the well-established electromagnetic laws govern the atoms and molecules. It is well-known that the model is characterized by excellent mathematics of the gauge theory. However as Newton revealed the nature cannot be governed by mathematics but by well-established natural laws. It also does not correctly account for the neutrino oscillations which imply not only the existence of neutrino masses but also the existence of the neutrino magnetic moments. For example the antineutrino has negative charge along the periphery and positive charge in the center like the charge distributions of neutron. Nevertheless in high energy physics which is governed also by the laws of electromagnetism under a quantum dynamics of partially oriented spins of quarks the Standard Model seemed to be correct after the successful discoveries of the bottom quark (1977) the top quark (1995) and the tau neutrino (2000). However in the absence of the discovery of new natural laws the Standard Model in vain looks for a “common ground” that would unite all these fallacious theories into one integrated theory of everything.    

According to the standard model the neutron and proton are composed of (dud) and (uud) quarks respectively. However nuclear experiments showed that such simple triads of quarks contribute only about 1% of the masses of nucleons. Under this condition Gell-Mann in 1973 proposed the theory of Quantum Chromodynamics by using strange color charges out of the fundamental laws of electromagnetism. Then using the wrong special relativity he proposed that the remainder of the mass of nucleons is due to the kinetic energy of the quarks and to the energy of hypothetical gluon fields that bind the quarks together. Note that the nuclear experiments showed that energy cannot be converted into the mass of neutron Mn and the mass of proton Mp  

Also the nuclear experiments which led to the relations

μ/S = -1.913e/Mn    and   μ/S = 2.793e/ Mp       

showed that the negative magnetic moment of neutron implies distribution  of negative charges along the periphery of the spinning neutron and positive charge in the center, while in the standard model  the triad of (dud) gives zero charge since the charge of d =-e/3 and the charge of u =+2e/3. On the other hand the triad (uud) even in case in which the charges of u quarks are distributed along the periphery of the spinning proton we revealed that they cannot give the large experimental value of 2.793. Of course such problems occurred because all nuclear physicists of the 20th century abandoned the natural laws in favor of qualitative descriptions.     

THE STRUCTURE OF PROTON AND NEUTRON

To overcome this problem in 2002 we presented at the 12th Symposium of the Hellenic nuclear physics society” our paper “Nuclear structure is governed by the fundamental laws of electromagnetism”. In that paper I analyzed carefully under the applications of electromagnetic laws the magnetic moment μ = IπR2. For example for the spinning proton according to the experiments of the deep inelastic scattering a negative charge –q is distributed in the center while a positive charge Q is distributed along the periphery. So it gives μ = QνπR2. Also the spin S of proton (oblate spheroid) is given by S = tMpωR2. Note that the factor t characterizes the shape between a sphere and a disk.

That is, 0.4 < t < 0.5. Therefore under these conditions we write

μ/S  = QνπR2/t Mp2πνR2 = 2.793 e/Mp   or Q/2t = 2.793 e

Thus for t =0.47742 we get Q = 8e/3 and –q = - 5e/3. In other words the experiments revealed extra quarks (4u, 5d) in proton. Also using the same method in neutron we revealed that in neutron there are extra quarks as 8d along the periphery and 4u in the center. In general a careful analysis of all experiments leads to the structure of proton and neutron. Note that after detailed calculations the mass of the up quark is u =2.4 MeV and that of the down quark is d =3.69 MeV. Therefore the masses Mn and Mp of neutron and proton can be analyzed as

Mn = [92(dud) +4u +8d] =939.57 and Mp  = [93(dud) + 4u +5d]= 938.28

See in Google our scientific papers “NEW ATOMIC AND NUCLEAR PHYSICS” and “QUARKS NEUTRINOS NUCLEONS AND NUCLEI”. Here one can see that the stability of proton is due to the 93 stable triads with zero charge, while the free neutron decays because one d quark among the 8d quarks is transformed into an u quark in order to make the stable triad (dud). Since Mn – Mp  = d - u = 1.29  MeV we conclude that during this transformation from (ddd) to (dud) the binding energy is -1.29 MeV which is less than the binding energy of -2.2246 MeV of the simplest proton-neutron bond. So when the p-n bonds have stronger binding energy than the -1.29 MeV the nuclei are stable.

THE NATURE OF NUCLEAR FORCE

According to the standard model the nuclear force is based on the wrong structure of protons and neutrons. It is due to the fallacious “Strong Interaction” or “Color force” based on the false theory of the Quantum Chromodynamics according to which the nuclear force is due to the Yukawa mesons (1935) which are combined with the hypothetical “color charge” though quarks have fractional electric charges.

After this confusion we revived the applications of the well-established laws of Coulomb and Biot-Savart on such charge distributions give the parallel spin of the simple p-n system which invalidates the exclusion principle of Pauli, and leads to the binding energy of – 2.2246 MeV of the p-n bond, while the p-p and n-n systems give repulsive energies which contribute to the instability of nuclei. In other words applications of the well-established electromagnetic laws on the revealed structure of the proton-neutron systems led to the structure of nuclei by invalidating the wrong assumptions of the so-called strong interaction mediated incorrectly by the fallacious gluons and color charges of the Standard model.  

INVALIDITY OF THE WEAK INTERACTION

Since Mn - Mp =1.29  MeV = d-u  we conclude that in case in which an energetic antineutrino ν- of 1.8 MeV interacts with a free proton it actually interacts with the u quark of the one extra (dud) triad. Thus, during the transformation it is absorbed like a photon as ν- +u = d + e+ we observe the conservation law of mass or energy measured in MeV. Since in the decay of neutron the electron and the antineutrino are emitted with opposite spin we conclude that the antineutrino has negative magnetic moment with a positive charge in the center and a negative one along the periphery, while the neutrino has positive magnetic moment. Thus like a dipolic photon which is absorbed after an electromagnetic interaction the antineutrino   interacts with electric and magnetic forces acting at a distance with the up quark. Then it is absorbed for giving its energetic energy of 1.8 MeV to the energies of d quark and positron as

1.8 + 2.4 = 3.69 + 0.51

In other words nuclear experiments not only invalidate the fallacious strong and weak interactions of the standard model but also lead to the structures of nucleons and nuclei under the applications of the well-established laws of electromagnetism.

THE STRUCTURE OF NUCLEI

In the absence of a realistic force based on natural laws many physicists under the wrong energy-mass conservation of Einstein believe that the nuclear binding energy is due to the mass defect. Also under the unknown laws of nuclear forces many wrong nuclear structure models like the liquid drop the Fermi gas the nuclear shell and the collective picture led to complications like the epicycles of the Ptolemy system in the fallacious geocentric system.  Under these difficulties I revived the well-established laws of electromagnetism acting on the charge distributions of the correct structure of nucleons given by the detailed analysis of the nuclear experiments.    

1274 × 876 - physics.wikia.com