Archive for the 'Nuclear Physics' Category

Aug 27 2022

Concentrated Group Action

There is another slightly different view in which the Coulomb field transmits when it comes to nuclei as parts of molecules, and that is by pulsating, concentrated Weyl groups or frames of a small conical angle, toward another nucleus. It is not wholly different from the last blog entry because spherical pulses could also be seen as groups, and for a given charge these concentrated groups are in addition to spherical groups.

When an O2 or N2 binuclear molecule forms, or let us say a benzene molecule, each nucleus senses the other nuclei closest. This is a strong repulsion, so the nuclei may start sending out groups concentrated toward the other nuclei for efficiency, while the electron cloud in between the nuclei offers attraction and keeps the molecule from flying apart. This also changes the Calabi-Yau structures within the nuclei.

For Coulomb attraction, a frame may wrap around another charge. For Coulomb repulsion, there may be partial contact and some backflush. As two close nuclei in a molecule sense each other, there may also be alternating, concentrated, group pulses between the two. This is likened to a synchronization between the nuclei, without the need for backflush. With phonon transmission this is a very fast process and transmits without intercepting electrons in orbitals. When we compare the size of nuclei and electrons to molecular size, there is a lot of empty space filled with gravitons, so this synchronization is reasonable.

In larger nuclei there are more compact spaces and more affine connections between them. For a nucleus we may call these irreducible representations, where the exception is fission, as a “reduced root system in V” ([1], pg. 461). The nuclear charge manufactures springboard groups repeatedly, with oscillations and accordion motion in multiple axes. A stable nucleus in a molecule is an isomorphism, though we must be careful here because as orientations change, there may be slight changes in structure. Particle colliders are excluded from this discussion.

A nucleus consists of involutive automorphisms, the summation adding to the entity’s spin, as it absorbs gravitons for the energy to send out groups or frames. Boothby calls these “inner automorphisms of G” ([2]. Pg. 237). A Weyl chamber is part of atomic mass, while a Weyl group transmits as a packet in the not so compact space of the gamma ray field.

We see that “π is a continuous and open mapping.” ([1], pg. 120]. In certain areas of deep space we may call this Riemannian globally symmetric space I, with perfect sine waves and no circular polarization. “Riemannian globally symmetric spaces of type II” ([1], pg. 516) are due to the bi-invariant structure of the Coulomb field. In both cases there is a “strong orthogonality” ([1], pg. 576) which produces a polarization factor of 2, as used in the blackbody radiation formula and in G = 4hf/3. π may be called a free graviton, since it is one half wavelength long.

As far as the Coulomb field produced by an electron in an atomic or a molecular orbital: “Let N0 be a bounded star-shaped open neighborhood of 0 ϵ g which exp maps diffeomorphically onto an open neighborhood Ne of e in G.” ([1], pg. 552) Let e be the electron, star-shaped be the lobes of orbitals, and exp be the growth of an orbital electron in size and charge. The increase in size of an electron in the orbital enables it to absorb more gravitons at a given time, thus increasing gravitational pull in the second half of the arc.

[1] Helgason, Sigurdur, “Differential Geometry, Lie Groups, and Symmetric Spaces”, American Mathematical Society, 2012

[2] Boothby, William M., “An Introduction to Differentiable Manifolds and Riemannian Geometry”, Academic Press, 2003

No responses yet

Feb 11 2022

Isotropic Property of the Coulomb Potential

In the vicinity of where our machines have been, we know that electric current will flow in any designated direction and is not particular to the direction of the highest flux density of gravitons.

For various reasons, we cannot have protons and electrons continuously flipping, – the Stern-Gerlach experiment proves that they do not. There must be internal processes of the proton and electron which produce isotropic electric fields. Some of this was previously addressed in two blog entries:

It is possible that not all conjugate wave gravitons pass straight through a proton or electron, or that even with a free proton or electron that the gravitons leaving have just entered. Some may make a horseshoe pattern and come out near the same point entered. They may be able to come back out at any angle. As compressed as the gravitons become inside a particle, almost any shape can occur. Gravitational pressure dictates a consistent size of a free proton or electron.

With the flux density coming out of the face of the earth, we seem to have a conundrum with the idea of gravitational pressure, one side having much greater pressure than the other. Why do gravitons not burst out the top, resulting in particle collapse? It also begs the question as to why electrons are perfectly round, and not teardrop shaped:

Possibly, branes form at the top of an electron and reform in a spin flip.  These branes would be linked inside the particle so that they do not bust out, and may deflect some exiting gravitons at various angles. These branes may also help keep the electron round. Here we are designating “top” as away from the highest flux density of gravitons.

As far as isotropic fields, at this point we must say that it is designed internal to the proton or electron and is of consistent pattern.  The open field starts just outside the particle, so it is maintained that electric and magnetic fields transmit openly by “phase shift and chirality” or “phase shift and parity”.  The Coulomb force is considered instantaneous at reasonable distances:

It appears as though this is necessary, because then the speed that free gravitons travel at, the speed of light in a vacuum, does not effect the electric and magnetic fields generated.

No responses yet

Feb 10 2022


Inside a proton or electron, events may approach the Planck length.  The frequency of the waves would not change from that of a free space graviton, though wavelength and amplitude do change.

Waves inside a particle may make loops in certain circumstances, not necessarily around the perimeter, though internally, and required because of all the traffic.

Certainly, the ways these vibrations set up in a proton or electron determines whether we have a positive or negative charge.  If we did not have any loops and curves, the versatility needed would be hard to set up.  It is somewhat like a Hilbert space with wrapped up dimensions.

Put another way: “A string vibrating in one particular pattern might have the properties of an electron, while a string vibrating in a different pattern might have the properties of an up-quark, a down-quark, or any of the other particle species in Table 12.1.  It is not that an “electron string” makes up an electron …Instead the single species of string can account for a great variety of particles …” *

If you peruse this website, you will find other areas of unification.

* Greene, Brian, The Fabric of the Cosmos, c. 2004 Vintage Books, a division of Random House, Inc., p. 346-347

No responses yet

Aug 14 2011

Topology of the Vacuum

Whether we are looking at nuclear fission or the results of scattering experiments, the way spin-parity assignments are often kept in order in nature would be similar to the cause of a de Broglie wavelength.  Rotational states ratchet through the gravitational flux, with potential wells rising and falling in one of the most fundamental of quantum phenomenons that exist.

During and shortly after high flux, high velocity hadron collisions at Fermilab or the CERN LHC nevertheless, some of the scattering resonances seen may be due to a blitz through the gravitational field, not organized very well in a manner, for example, such as an electric field.  The static we typically see in Goldhaber plots generated from hadron colliding experiments may in part be due to a cascade of momentum generated through the gravitational field.

Another evidence of the gravitational field is the Bohm-Aharonov effect.  As Ryder puts it, “the Bohm-Aharonov effect owes its existence to the non-trivial topology of the vacuum, and the fact that electrodynamics is a gauge theory.  In fact, it has recently been realized that the vacuum, in gauge theories, has a rich mathematical structure, with associated physical consequences,” ([1], pg 101).

Astronomically, and for the sake of history, it is somewhat reminiscent of the luminiferous aether.

Another concept related here is that “the configuration space of the vacuum is not simply connected.” ([1], pg 102)  When we speak of ‘one loop’ consequences, we can liken it to the Cauchy integral, which Greiner calls “The surprising statement of the integral formula (4.16), namely, that it is sufficient to know a function along a closed path to determine any function value in the interior,” ([2], pg 109).  For those more willing to trust the mathematicians for pure math, the Cauchy integral formula is presented in Brown and Churchill:

f(z) = (1/2πi) ∫ (1/(s-z)) f(s) ds                     ([3], pgs 166 and 429)

With “the gauge invariance of electrodynamics” ([1], pg 97), the perfect balance of charge that exists in the near universe, – possibly the entire universe, and the quantum steps of the Coulomb force by phonon transmission, the Bohm-Aharonov effect does indeed show us that there are physical consequences to the vacuum that are non-trivial, relating to the gravitational field in which the Bohm-Aharonov test and other tests are set up and run.

As a final thought, it is probable that planar electromagnetic waves would not turn into spherical electromagnetic waves were it not for traveling through a gravitational field.


[1] Ryder, Lewis H., Quantum Field Theory, Second Edition, Cambridge University Press, 1996

[2] Greiner, Walter, Classical Electrodynamics, First German edition, Klassische Elektrodynamik, 1991 Verlag Harri Deutsch. 1998 Springer-Verlag New York, Inc.

[3] Brown, James Ward and Churchill, Ruel V., Complex Variables and Applications, Eighth Edition, McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2009

No responses yet

Jun 09 2011

Internal Conversion

Internal conversion is likely due to a missed spin flip signal from the nucleus, when one or more currents internal to the nucleus are disrupted at an inappropriate time.  One of the places a description is found is in Krane section 10.6.

Looking to the same book, and while it refers to the complete spin-orbit interaction, and not just spin flips, a useful quote here is “the nucleus produces a current loop, which gives rise to a magnetic field at the location of the electron; this magnetic field interacts with the spin magnetic moment µs of the electron …” *.  When it comes to internal conversion then, synchronous timing of a spin flip signal is critical to holding an electron in a quantum orbital, and loss of the signal due to nucleus disruption can allow the electron to take off on a short or long trip to an atmospheric atom, to another planet, to the Andromeda Galaxy, or to be captured in a Van Allen Belt just for a few possibilities.

The higher the principle quantum number, the higher the kinetic energy an electron will have in this process as it takes off.


* Krane, Kenneth, Introductory Nuclear Physics, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1988, Chapter 16, pg 611

No responses yet

Feb 22 2011

LHC Motto

In an earlier entry it was lamented how some physicists seem to make a transition from special to general relativity as though the two are somehow linked.  I don’t know if the Wikipedia article on Albert Einstein was written by a physicist, however it goes one step further and gets relativity completely mixed up.  It calls Einstein “a German born theoretical physicist who discovered the theory of general relativity effecting a revolution in physics.” [1]

For young people studying math and science, please note that it was special relativity that advanced physics by a giant leap, not general relativity.  In a recent article on CERN’s startup of the Large Hadron Collider after a 10-week shutdown, Robert Evans of Reuters, and the Toronto Sun, got it right when it was said:

“New Physics, the motto of the LHC, refers to knowledge that will take research beyond the “Standard Model” of how the universe works that emerged from the work of Albert Einstein and his 1905 Theory of Special Relativity.” [2]




No responses yet

Dec 20 2010

Research Integrity

Published by under Nuclear Physics

It is always refreshing when instances are found where the physics world is honest, and shows that they really have some integrity and responsibility, because going way back things can get out of hand once in a while before they come back to reality.  At Fermilab, the CERN LHC, and other labs, with all the particles smashing together almost anything can be found with some imagination and maybe a matrix made to match.

Here is one instance where responsibility recently prevailed:

The link seems to have generated a lot of interesting comments as well.

No responses yet

Oct 07 2010

The Standard Model

Published by under Nuclear Physics

Even if gravitons are the fundamental quantum unit, it is beyond obvious that many other electromagnetic waves and particles have their own functions in the physical world.

Electrons, along with protons, alpha particles, and a few other nuclei are stable, whether part of atoms or free.  They are synchronized with a gravitational field providing barrier pressure and conjugate wave functions.  Several other particles in the standard model typically have lifetimes shorter than a micro second, found often through scattering experiments.  Since we cannot call a time so short an ‘existence’, one occasionally finds statements by physicists that these particles have never been found in the free state.

With gravitons coming in at all polar angles to a subatomic particle or to a nucleus, combinations of mass, angular momentum, parity, isospin, and charge, to maintain a nucleus or to produce intermediate particles, are needed in order to produce the four fundamental forces of nature.  In other words, understanding in terms of internal and free gravitons, with their wave functions and conjugates, is simply not enough.  The uncertainty principle prevents us from obtaining a clear picture of the inside of an atomic nucleus or an electron at any instant in time.

Many of the gamma rays emitted through nuclear fission or a scattering experiment are in the tens and hundreds of keV in terms of energy.  For nuclear fission, it is nuclear multipole vibrations and moments, and internal wave functions that provide the spring action to eject particles from a nucleus.  In scattering we can add incident particle energies.

As far as internal gravitons, no matter how many are involved with an ejection, recoil energy expenditure and other effects can cause the 312.76 MeV gamma rays to reduce in energy down into the keV range when emitted, – which are of course then no longer gravitons.  Internal wave functions with transverse momentum to the ejection of a particle from a nucleus, which would be most of them, may acquire angular momentum or circular or elliptic polarity in the process, in both the remaining nucleus and in the resultant scattered particles, whether it be alpha or beta decay, or the short lived quark, gluon, pion, ω meson, ρ meson, kaon, W± boson, Z boson, or the hyperon and other strange baryons, to name a few.

As far as free gravitons captured as they enter a nucleus, some may be used to manufacture W± and Z0 bosons in order to maintain the weak nuclear force.

We cannot go forward with physics by throwing out the standard model.  It must stay, and only be revised by agreement of the physics community as a whole.

No responses yet

Mar 29 2010


According to what one reads, the CERN LHC is set to start colliding 3.5 TeV proton beams tomorrow, if they can get the beams, running for days now, lined up by then.  The LHC will obtain a variety of downscattered energies, however photons of the same energy and phase can add together in the same measurement.  In terms of discrete photons, it should be a continuous spectrum with a peak near the highest energy that the instrument can effectively measure.

With particle masses on the other hand, nobody knows for sure.  It could be an extension upon the “zoo of elementary particles that the experimentalists were discovering in their particle accelerators” * prior to the development of the Standard Model of particle physics.

In some ways it would appear easier to work with one elementary particle instead of sixteen or more.


* Smolin, Lee, The Trouble with Physics, Houghton Mifflin Company, c. 2006, p. 54

(The Standard Model of particle physics was not the main focus of Smolin’s book.)

No responses yet

Apr 10 2008

The Nucleus and Gravitons

There is another possibility, as opposed to total deflection, for what happens when gravitons encounter a nucleus.  Since the makings of an electron exist inside a neutron, and neutrons and protons have their own spin functions going on inside, it is not outside the realm of possibilities that atomic nuclei, each when part of its own functional atom, absorb gravitons.
What a nucleus in a gravitational field, the earth’s let’s say, would do with all this absorbed energy is not too hard to imagine.  The Coulomb field of an atom is full of electromagnetic wave activity involved with keeping electrons in orbit, and some of that energy may escape.  Therefore we would have gravitational energy replenishing Coulomb energy through both the electrons and the nucleus of an atom.
The synchronization involved as a graviton enters a nucleus would have to be just as smooth as when one enters an electron in a quantum atomic orbital in order for the nucleus to not have been pushed by the absorbed gravitons.  Also, inflow of energy must balance outflow in order for there to be a steady-state, steady-flow process.  In this case it is only those gravitons which pass near the edge of a nucleus that would have to be deflected by its local magnetic field.
If you have read it and remember, my April 2007 paper already has the Coulomb force as the final mediator of the gravitational force.

No responses yet

Next »