Modern Nuclear Physics in Turmoil

by / February 11, 2016

As a theoretical quantum chemist and chemical physicist, I had always had a keen interest in nuclear physics. The standard models accepted by nuclear physicists by and large involve Strong Forces operating between protons (p+) represented as point charges, so as to overcome the enormous repulsive forces present at very short inter-proton distance within the atomic nucleus. Also Weak Forces are proposed to operate between neutrons, which accounts for beta (β-)decay and Electron Capture(EC)mechanisms. These are the Standard Model (SM) coupled with Quantum Elctrodynamics (QED), for the current theory of nuclear structures.

During the 1980s-1990s, Dr. Charles Lucas Jr. (mathematician and physicist) and David Bergman MS (physics), founders of the Common Sense Science Ministry, proposed models for electrons and protons, in which these particles were not point charges, but had geometries in the form of a helicon (rotating torus) with finite dimensions and only electromagnetic forces operating between them. These were like very thin, tiny, electrically charged washers, which were free to rotate and vibrate.

In the 1990s my research associate, Eric Baxter, and I decided to test this Lucas/Bergman model, conducting theoretical calculations on arrays of toridal electrons and protons in the atomic nucleus. In this model, neutrons do not exist in the atomic nucleus as independent particles, but rather are paired combinations of electrons (e-) and protons (p+). This does allow for neutrons as particles to be expelled from the nucleus, but free neutrons have a very short half-life. All combinations of electrical and magnetic forces were includes in these calculations. There was no inclusion of Strong or Weak Forces in this model. Details of these calculations may be found in reference [1]. To our amazement, the resulting calculations of nuclear binding energies and decay rates of select isotopes, for beta (β-) and alpha (α4+) decay processes, were all in excellent agreement with experimental values. These results are to be compared to those calculated by the SM, which were too frequently in error by 20-30%, and in some cases even worse, when compared to experimental values.

The obvious conclusion from our studies was that no nuclear Strong Forces or Weak Forces were required to account for nuclear structures and related processes.

In February, 2015, Dr. Charles Lucas, Jr. published a paper challenging the current model of nuclear physics [2]. The proposed nuclear Strong Force is a 1/Rn dependence, in which n≥3. However, Lucas showed from experimental data, that the trend for Atomic Mass vs. Atomic Number in the 180-181 mass range, was a regular parabolic curve, having a solution as a quadratic equation. Hence, the Rn variable cannot have n >2. Consequently, the nuclear Strong Force is simply not operating.

Lucas also showed from experimental data that the nuclear Weak Force could not be operating either.

In conclusion, it appears from the studies of Boudreaux and Baxter and those of Lucas, that the modern, accepted model of nuclear structure is invalid. What a marvelous example of God’s design for complexity out of basic simplicity.

[1] The journal of Common Sense Science, Foundations of Science, Vol. 5, No.3, August, 2001, Radioactivity.

[2] Ibid.vol.8, No.1, February, 2015, Truth in Atomic Physics.

The following two tabs change content below.
Dr. Edward Boudreaux

Dr. Edward Boudreaux

Professor Boudreaux is Professor Emeritus of Chemistry at the University of New Orleans, Louisiana. He holds a B.S. in chemistry from Loyola University, an M.S. in chemistry and a Ph.D. in chemistry from Tulane University. Professor Boudreaux has spent 29 years in graduate education and research in the area of theoretical and inorganic chemistry and chemical physics, and is the author or coauthor of four technical books in the area of inorganic chemistry, as well as numerous scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals and textbooks.

Your Commment

Email (will not be published)