Why Gravity is Significant in Proton & Neutron Nuclei

[Andrew Mason]

Can anyone explain to me why gravity would not be a significant force on the 'surface' of a proton or neutron? A quick calculation shows that the acceleration of a neutron toward another neutron or a proton separated by less than the radius of a neutron, is very large (compared to the radius of the neutron). The acceleration is several orders of magnitude greater than the radius of the neutron $/ sec^{2}$:

$$G = 6.67 \times 10^{-11} Nm^2 /kg^{2}$$

1) diameter of nucleus of H is ~ $10^{-15} m$
radius of nucleus is: $5 \times 10^{-16} m$

2) mass nucleus of H is $1.66 \times 10^{-27} kg.$

3) gravitational force and acceleration between two protons in He nucleus is:

$$F = GmM/r^2$$

$$F = 6.67 \times 10^{-11} \times (1.66 \times 10^{-27})^2 \div (5 \times 10^{-16})^2$$

$$F = .735 \times 10^{(-65+32)}$$

$$F = 7.35 \times 10^{-34} N$$

$$F = m a$$

$$a = F / m$$

$$a = 7.35 \times 10^{-34} \div 1.66 \times 10^{-27}$$

$$a = 4.43 \times 10^{-7} m/sec^2$$

Since the radius of the proton is ~ $10^{-15} m,$ this seems like a significant acceleration, or am I missing something?

Andrew Mason

 

[mathman]

I won't claim any expertise here, but I understand at the level (subatomic particles) being considered, things don't act like solid balls. Quantum theory rules here.

 

[Nereid]

Try doing a similar calculation Andrew, for the acceleration between two protons in a nucleus (make similar, classical, assumptions) ... let us know what you find!

 

[Andrew Mason]

Try doing a similar calculation Andrew, for the acceleration between two protons in a nucleus (make similar, classical, assumptions) ... let us know what you find!

Since the mass of the proton and neutron are the same, the gravitational force is the same. Of course we ignore how we get two protons together and overcome the repulsive electrical forces.

Andrew Mason

 

[humanino]

Of course... That might be what Nereid meant !

Beside, you cannot only compare an acceleration to a distance, at first it does not make sens. You need either to know either a speed, or a time scale. Gravity must come out negligible in any case. Besides, the strong interaction is named because it is even larger than the EM interaction.

 

[Nereid]

Since the mass of the proton and neutron are the same, the gravitational force is the same. Of course we ignore how we get two protons together and overcome the repulsive electrical forces.

Andrew Mason

Indeed; my point was to compare the numbers for gravitation and EM, using the same calculations: "A quick calculation shows that the acceleration of a [proton] [away from] another [proton] separated by less than the radius of a [proton], is very large (compared to the radius of the [proton])." Within this very restrictive (and unrealistic) set of assumptions, by how many OOM (orders of magnitude) is the EM acceleration greater than the gravitational one?

(Once you've given us the calculations Andrew, you might like to provide an operational definition of 'negligible' )

 

[arivero]

Hmm one should compare forces to forces, potatoes to potatoes. So nuclear (pions) fermi force is the one to check here.

 

[humanino]

I think the easiest way to do so, is to compare potential energies.

 

[Andrew Mason]

Of course... That might be what Nereid meant !

Beside, you cannot only compare an acceleration to a distance, at first it does not make sens.

What is important, it seems to me, is the time required for significant changes in separation to occur. When you are contemplating protons and neutrons in the nucleus, the separation distances are very small. While the Earth produces much greater gravitational acceleration at its surface than a proton does at its surface, the time required for signficant changes in separation to be reduced by gravity is much greater:

Example:
For an object that is .01 Earth radius above the Earth (about 60 km), the time required to return to the surface (ignoring friction) is:

$$t = \sqrt{2s/g}$$

$$g \approx 10 m/sec^2$$

$$t = \sqrt{2 \times 120 \times 10^3/10} = 154 seconds$$

For a proton separated from a neutron by .01 radius of a neutron, the time required to return to the surface of the neutron is:


$$\therefore t = \sqrt{5 \times 10^{-18}/4 \times 10^{-7}} = 3.5 \times 10^{-5} sec.$$

($s = .01 \times$ radius of neutron $= 5 \times 10^{-18}m.$)

($$a \approx 4 \times 10^{-7} m / sec^2$$)

You need either to know either a speed, or a time scale. Gravity must come out negligible in any case. Besides, the strong interaction is named because it is even larger than the EM interaction.

If we are interested in identifying what keeps the nucleus together (as opposed to what keeps a proton together) the essential question is: what are the forces that work against it?

The magnitude of gravity within the nucleus may be small by comparison to the EM interaction, but how do we know that the EM interaction applies within the nucleus? If it does, then obviously gravity would not be sufficient to keep the nucleus together. But I am not sure that it does. I was hoping someone out there might be able to explain why gravity is not sufficient.

Andrew Mason

 

[humanino]

No, gravity by itself is far not sufficient to overcome EM repulsion. It is only the residual strong interaction potential which keeps the nucleons together. Have you calculated EM repulsion ?

 

[Andrew Mason]

No, gravity by itself is far not sufficient to overcome EM repulsion. It is only the residual strong interaction potential which keeps the nucleons together. Have you calculated EM repulsion ?

I never said gravity by itself was sufficient to overcome EM repulsion. It is dozens of orders of magnitude smaller. But I am not assuming that it has to overcome EM repulsion in order for the nucleus to stay together (ie. once it is together).

If you put H nuclei together create He, one has to use a lot of energy to overcome the EM repulsion (ie. it requires the energy inside a star). But once fusion occurs, do we know that the EM repulsion continues to operate between protons in the nucleus? That would be my question.

EM repulsion certainly doesn't continue when two protons fuse to produce deuterium (and emit a positron). Does EM repulsion continue when an extra proton is added to the nucleus?

Andrew Mason

 

[zefram_c]

Of course EM repulsion continues within the nucleus. That is why heavier nuclei with a lot of protons are unstable - the repulsion is stronger than the nuclear attractive forces. That's also why no elements with more than 100 protons exist in nature - they're very unstable.

 

[Andrew Mason]

Of course EM repulsion continues within the nucleus. That is why heavier nuclei with a lot of protons are unstable - the repulsion is stronger than the nuclear attractive forces. That's also why no elements with more than 100 protons exist in nature - they're very unstable.

That doesn't necessarily mean that EM repulsion continues within the nucleus of He. It may be that EM forces have a minimum range: they do not apply within a region of space that is larger than a He nucleus but smaller than a nucleus of Einsteinium.

I am not saying this is actually the case. I am wondering if anyone can explain why it is not the case.

Andrew Mason

 

[Nereid]

I think you've heard of scattering experiments Andrew, in which a beam of electrons (or protons) hits a target of protons (H nuclei); if you read up on those, I think you'll find that there's very clear experimental data to show that the EM force doesn't weaken at short distances; at least to the experimental limit.

 

[Andrew Mason]

I think you've heard of scattering experiments Andrew, in which a beam of electrons (or protons) hits a target of protons (H nuclei); if you read up on those, I think you'll find that there's very clear experimental data to show that the EM force doesn't weaken at short distances; at least to the experimental limit.

Scattering experiments are, for the most part, done with electrons, not protons. The result is that we do not measure electrical repulsion between protons. Perhaps you can explain to me how electron scattering shows that EM force exists within the nucleus and, in particular, that proton-proton repulsion exists within the nucleus.

If electron-proton EM attraction exists to within a very small distance from the nucleus, why is there not some electron energy at which the electron reaches the nucleus but cannot escape it - ie it joins the nucleus? The quantum mechanical explanation of the electrons in the atom based on the uncertainty principle may be quite correct but begs the question: does EM force really have any meaning when elementary charged particles get very close?

Andrew Mason

 

[ZapperZ]

If electron-proton EM attraction exists to within a very small distance from the nucleus, why is there not some electron energy at which the electron reaches the nucleus but cannot escape it - ie it joins the nucleus? The quantum mechanical explanation of the electrons in the atom based on the uncertainty principle may be quite correct but begs the question: does EM force really have any meaning when elementary charged particles get very close?

Andrew Mason

Andrew,

When you look at the Schrodinger equation for the hydrogen atom, for example, what do you think that "V" term is?

Furthermore, you don't use the "uncertainty principle" to accurately solve for the energy states, etc. of an atom.

As for electron not reaching the nucleus, who said that? There is a difference between the BOUND STATE solution of an atom, where there is a minium, ground state for an electron-atom system, and free electron colliding with a bare proton/nucleus, which can induce an inverse beta decay! In the latter case, you CAN have an electron capture with the appropriate momentum conservation condition.

Zz.

 

[Nereid]

Scattering experiments are, for the most part, done with electrons, not protons. The result is that we do not measure electrical repulsion between protons. Perhaps you can explain to me how electron scattering shows that EM force exists within the nucleus and, in particular, that proton-proton repulsion exists within the nucleus.

If electron-proton EM attraction exists to within a very small distance from the nucleus, why is there not some electron energy at which the electron reaches the nucleus but cannot escape it - ie it joins the nucleus? The quantum mechanical explanation of the electrons in the atom based on the uncertainty principle may be quite correct but begs the question: does EM force really have any meaning when elementary charged particles get very close?

Andrew Mason

You might like to google on 'proton-proton scattering'; it would seem that there have been quite a few such experiments, over a wide range of energies.

I'll leave it to a PF member more familiar with this work than I am to say something about the results of scattering experiments wrt your idea that the EM force may have a different behaviour either in nuclei or over short ranges (or both).

 

[humanino]

We use quantum electrodynamics to probe the proton structure at very small distance. For instance at 6 GeV, we are under $$2\times10^{-17}$$m.
If course if you insist in saying "what about thousand times smaller than any actual accessible distance" we would have to give up.

 

[Andrew Mason]

Andrew,
When you look at the Schrodinger equation for the hydrogen atom, for example, what do you think that "V" term is?

The Schrodinger equation provides an accurate mathematical model for the quantum mechanical behaviour of the atom, in which EM potential is obviously important. Inside the nucleus may be another matter.

Furthermore, you don't use the "uncertainty principle" to accurately solve for the energy states, etc. of an atom.

I agree. But one does use it to explain why the electron doesn't simply 'fall' into the nucleus due to EM attraction.

As for electron not reaching the nucleus, who said that? There is a difference between the BOUND STATE solution of an atom, where there is a minium, ground state for an electron-atom system, and free electron colliding with a bare proton/nucleus, which can induce an inverse beta decay! In the latter case, you CAN have an electron capture with the appropriate momentum conservation condition.

But it is quite rare and it is not stable. One might think (classically) that the EM attraction would bring it into the nucleus and keep it there, if EM attraction was that strong inside the nucleus.

It is assumed that strong nuclear attractive force works against the coulomb repulsion force that exists between protons. This means that the nuclear force is strong only in the region very close to the nucleus. I am looking for the evidence that this is in fact the case. I am suggesting that the same result would occur if the coulomb force had a minimum range (ie did not operate inside a certain the region close to the proton) so that the force which keeps protons together is something much weaker. I am suggesting, if that is the case, that gravity might actually be the dominant force inside the nucleus.

Andrew Mason

 

[ZapperZ]

It is assumed that strong nuclear attractive force works against the coulomb repulsion force that exists between protons. This means that the nuclear force is strong only in the region very close to the nucleus. I am looking for the evidence that this is in fact the case.

I'm sorry, but is this still in doubt? A nucleus consists of a bunch of positively charged protons, and neutral neutrons. If there's nothing else that not only counter the coulombic repulsion, but also is way stronger than the coulombic repulsion, don't you think the nucleus would fly apart?

I am suggesting that the same result would occur if the coulomb force had a minimum range (ie did not operate inside a certain the region close to the proton) so that the force which keeps protons together is something much weaker. I am suggesting, if that is the case, that gravity might actually be the dominant force inside the nucleus.

Andrew Mason

You can suggest anything you like, but without (i) a self-consistent theory and/or (ii) experimental impetus to suggest that, then you might as well propose that bored angels in their spare time pushes the nucleons together. To allow for what you are proposing, you have to rewrite the whole of Maxwell Equations, since the 1/r potential obviously have to be corrected.

What I'm puzzled with is that there ALREADY is a verified, consistent explanation/description for the strong force. What is WRONG with it that is causing you to come up with a whole new speculation on why nucleons can stick together in spite of the coulombic force? Did you find a flaw in the Glashow/Salam/Weinberg model that is causing you to refute their theory? Are you proposing that QCD be dumped in favor of your "gravity"?

Zz.

 

[marlon]

Andrew,

I suggest you need to look at the socalled "BETA-FUNCTION" of the strong-force-coupling constant AND the fact it is negative. You know : the famous asymptotic freedom...

As you will know it makes sure that a proton (just like any other baryon) is built out of three quarks with a different colour each so the colour-neutrality is always respected. The EM-processes are much much weaker when looked at some nucleus at quark-scale and this biggest problem you would have is there is no short-range for EM. The mediators will never acquire mass through the Higgs-mechanism.

QCD predicts that the interquark-potential is linear in the long range. So this basically means that in the vacuum state, the quarks will tend to form doublets or triplets...ie mesons and baryons.

I don't really see your problem with a theory that is already well established (apart from the quark-confinement ofcourse) and experimentally verified...

Indeed, in the short range the strong force becomes repulsive, yet this effect is much smaller compared to the i) long range attractive part of the strong force and ii) the attractive residual strong force mediated by the pions...which have mass and thus describe a short range "attractive" interaction. Why attractive? Well, because of the omnipresent colour-neutrality. Just look at how pions are created via the screening-effect in QCD...


regards
marlin

 

[ZapperZ]

As you will know it makes sure that a proton (just like any other fermion) is built out of three quarks with a different colour each so the colour-neutrality is always respected.

Er.. I think you mean ".. like any other baryon...", not fermion, especially if you are giving a "three quark" content example.

Zz.

 

[marlon]

Er.. I think you mean ".. like any other baryon...", not fermion, especially if you are giving a "three quark" content example.

Zz.

Yes indeed, Zz. Thanks for the correction...my mistake...

marlon

 

[Andrew Mason]

You can suggest anything you like, but without (i) a self-consistent theory and/or (ii) experimental impetus to suggest that, then you might as well propose that bored angels in their spare time pushes the nucleons together. To allow for what you are proposing, you have to rewrite the whole of Maxwell Equations, since the 1/r potential obviously have to be corrected.

Well, at some point the 1/r potential breaks down because the proton is not a point charge - it has a finite size. You are not suggesting that the potential goes to - infinity inside the proton are you? I am just suggesting that it might break down in a region that is outside the proton 'surface'.

What I'm puzzled with is that there ALREADY is a verified, consistent explanation/description for the strong force. What is WRONG with it that is causing you to come up with a whole new speculation on why nucleons can stick together in spite of the coulombic force? Did you find a flaw in the Glashow/Salam/Weinberg model that is causing you to refute their theory? Are you proposing that QCD be dumped in favor of your "gravity"?

I am just questioning the existing theory is correct. I am asking what evidence we have that there is a strong nuclear force.

So far the explanation has been, 1. protons repel protons with enormous EM force ($\propto 1/r^2$) that continues down to the 'surface of the proton'; 2. the nucleus consists of protons having a separation less than the radius of a proton and the nucleus does not fly apart. 3. Therefore there must be a strong nuclear force that is much greater than the coulombic repulsion forces but which operates only in the region of the nucleus.

3 necessarily follows from 1 and 2. I am just asking what evidence we have that 1 is correct.

Andrew Mason

 

[humanino]

Well, at some point the 1/r potential breaks down because the proton is not a point charge - it has a finite size.

Even within classical mechanics, this does not imply failure of the EM. Right the 1/r potential of the proton fails, but why would it be so for the point-like constituants ? From far away the proton looks like a point, and when you get near, you can see it is a ball, and if you get near enough, you can actually see the sub-structure. Everything in accordance with EM, or its quantum version necessary to describe the scattering process. But still, it is EM.

 

[humanino]

1) is wrong
Please read [thread=41110]this thread[/thread] about nuclear interactions.

 

[ZapperZ]

Well, at some point the 1/r potential breaks down because the proton is not a point charge - it has a finite size. You are not suggesting that the potential goes to - infinity inside the proton are you? I am just suggesting that it might break down in a region that is outside the proton 'surface'.

But you just answered your own question. If it is NOT a point charge, then you'll never get to an infinite potential. So what's the problem?

I am just questioning the existing theory is correct. I am asking what evidence we have that there is a strong nuclear force.

Do you even KNOW what the "existing theory" is, i.e. have you studied QFT, QED, and QCD? Or is this questioning simply based on ignorance that you acquired via reading pop-science books?

So far the explanation has been, 1. protons repel protons with enormous EM force ($\propto 1/r^2$) that continues down to the 'surface of the proton'; 2. the nucleus consists of protons having a separation less than the radius of a proton and the nucleus does not fly apart. 3. Therefore there must be a strong nuclear force that is much greater than the coulombic repulsion forces but which operates only in the region of the nucleus.

3 necessarily follows from 1 and 2. I am just asking what evidence we have that 1 is correct.

Andrew Mason

The discovery of the quarks AND the verification of the hirerchy of the quark model ARE the evidence of the strong force! QCD includes ALL the strong interactions and decay channels that make predicitons on what and where to look in a particle collider.

Zz.

 

[Andrew Mason]

Even within classical mechanics, this does not imply failure of the EM. Right the 1/r potential of the proton fails, but why would it be so for the point-like constituants ? From far away the proton looks like a point, and when you get near, you can see it is a ball, and if you get near enough, you can actually see the sub-structure. Everything in accordance with EM, or its quantum version necessary to describe the scattering process. But still, it is EM.

I am not the first to suggest that classical EM theory breaks down at the atomic level (eg. Planck's solution to the ultra-violet catastrophe).

We know that the proton, as with all elementary particles, can be expressed as a wave function. This suggests that when we get down to the regions of the 'surface' of the proton, things get fuzzy.

Within that fuzzy region, we cannot assume that electro-magnetic forces follow classical laws. Since the entire nucleus appears to be within the 'fuzzy region' and since the 'evidence' of the strong force seems to be an inference based on the assumption that enormous EM repulsion exists within the nucleus, I am questioning whether the strong force is real.

So I just ask the question: what evidence do we have for the strong nuclear force that is independent of any assumption that strong EM repulsion forces operate between protons within the nucleus? I am not suggesting it doesn't exist. I am just not aware of it.

Andrew Mason

 

[Andrew Mason]

But you just answered your own question. If it is NOT a point charge, then you'll never get to an infinite potential. So what's the problem?

If the proton was a perfect sphere with positive charge distributed uniformly over the surface, the $1/r^2$ force would apply only down to the surface (EM force would be 0 inside). But the proton is not a perfect sphere. It is a wave function that has rather fuzzy boundaries. It seems that the existence of the strong nuclear force is based on the assumption that EM repulsion continues to follow the $1/r^2$ relationship to a point that appears to be within that fuzzy boundary.

Do you even KNOW what the "existing theory" is, i.e. have you studied QFT, QED, and QCD? Or is this questioning simply based on ignorance that you acquired via reading pop-science books?

I am just asking questions. All questions are based on ignorance. Otherwise, why ask the question?

I don't pretend to have more than a rudimentary grasp of quantum theory. I studied it as an undergraduate in physics but that was many years ago. And I ended up as a lawyer.

The discovery of the quarks AND the verification of the hirerchy of the quark model ARE the evidence of the strong force! QCD includes ALL the strong interactions and decay channels that make predicitons on what and where to look in a particle collider.

My question was: What evidence is there that protons repel protons with enormous EM force ($\propto 1/r^2$) that continues down to the 'surface of the proton'.

Andrew Mason

 

[humanino]

I am not the first to suggest that classical EM theory breaks down at the atomic level (eg. Planck's solution to the ultra-violet catastrophe).

How old is that ?

We know that the proton, as with all elementary particles, can be expressed as a wave function. This suggests that when we get down to the regions of the 'surface' of the proton, things get fuzzy.

It would be meaningless to describe the proton as a wave by itself. This wave is a tensor product of the waves of the constituants.

Within that fuzzy region, we cannot assume that electro-magnetic forces follow classical laws. Since the entire nucleus appears to be within the 'fuzzy region' and since the 'evidence' of the strong force seems to be an inference based on the assumption that enormous EM repulsion exists within the nucleus, I am questioning whether the strong force is real.

We will soon be able to provide a snapshot of the interior of the proton. Total information on the content, that is the Wigner pseudo-probability distribution in phase space. The strong force is real there is definitely no doubt.

So I just ask the question: what evidence do we have for the strong nuclear force that is independent of any assumption that strong EM repulsion forces operate between protons within the nucleus? I am not suggesting it doesn't exist. I am just not aware of it.

Classification of hundreds of particles : the hadrons. The zoo of strongly bound states is far from random. It obeys symmetry. Those symmetries are beautifully interpreted in the standard-model. Besides, there is no such thing as a "strong EM repulsion". It is weak as compared to the strong force.

 

[ZapperZ]

If the proton was a perfect sphere with positive charge distributed uniformly over the surface, the $1/r^2$ force would apply only down to the surface (EM force would be 0 inside). But the proton is not a perfect sphere. It is a wave function that has rather fuzzy boundaries. It seems that the existence of the strong nuclear force is based on the assumption that EM repulsion continues to follow the $1/r^2$ relationship to a point that appears to be within that fuzzy boundary.

But I can ask you the same thing: what evidence do you have that the valid EM laws simply break down at a certain scale? While EM laws that we have are known to work, your guess work hasn't. So the "burden of proof" (something YOU should know about) is in your court. It is up to you to show that there ARE evidence to suggest that your idea might be valid.

I am just asking questions. All questions are based on ignorance. Otherwise, why ask the question?

But you already stated that you ARE questioning the validity of QCD. Maybe I am simply a foolish person, but if I were to question the validity of something, I would want to make sure I have understood as much as I can about that thing. So these simply aren't just "questions" out of curiousity.

My question was: What evidence is there that protons repel protons with enormous EM force ($\propto 1/r^2$) that continues down to the 'surface of the proton'.

Andrew Mason

The validity of EM and QED. On the other hand, what evidence do YOU have that Maxwell equation and/or QED do not work down to the "surface of the proton"?

Zz.

 

[Andrew Mason]

But I can ask you the same thing: what evidence do you have that the valid EM laws simply break down at a certain scale? While EM laws that we have are known to work, your guess work hasn't.

But EM laws do break down at the atomic level, which is why we have quantum theory. So the question is not whether they break down. The question is: at what point are they no longer valid?

So the "burden of proof" (something YOU should know about) is in your court. It is up to you to show that there ARE evidence to suggest that your idea might be valid.

At this stage I am cross-examining the evidence. I don't have to come up with a valid theory at this stage to test the prosecution's case.

But you already stated that you ARE questioning the validity of QCD. Maybe I am simply a foolish person, but if I were to question the validity of something, I would want to make sure I have understood as much as I can about that thing. So these simply aren't just "questions" out of curiousity.

In an ideal world I would have read and understood textbooks on quantum theory, tensor analysis, and general relativity and know how to develop Schrodinger's equation from first principles. I don't live in an ideal world.

The validity of EM and QED. On the other hand, what evidence do YOU have that Maxwell equation and/or QED do not work down to the "surface of the proton"?

But IF <A=the existence of the strong nuclear force> is in some part based on the assumption that <B=the EM field equations apply down to the surface of the proton>, and IF <C=EM field equations are known to break down at some point at the atomic level> THEN the onus would be on the proponent of A to show B is true. I don't have to lead evidence for a verdict of 'not proven'.

Andrew Mason

 

[ZapperZ]

But EM laws do break down at the atomic level, which is why we have quantum theory. So the question is not whether they break down. The question is: at what point are they no longer valid?

Hello? I asked you earlier what that "V" is in the Schrodinger equation that is USED to find all those solutions to an atom. Where do you think this came from?! This is exactly the coulombic potential from E&M!

At this stage I am cross-examining the evidence. I don't have to come up with a valid theory at this stage to test the prosecution's case.

This assumes that you have the ability to understand the evidence. Presumably, if you are not an expert in the field, you bring in experts that can evaluate the evidence. The experts in the fields have spoken, in VOLUMES of work in peer-reviewed journals.

So now what?

But IF <A=the existence of the strong nuclear force> is in some part based on the assumption that <B=the EM field equations apply down to the surface of the proton>, and IF <C=EM field equations are known to break down at some point at the atomic level> THEN the onus would be on the proponent of A to show B is true. I don't have to lead evidence for a verdict of 'not proven'.

Andrew Mason

Read above on why your so-called evidence that EM fields break down at the atomic level isn't valid. Thus, there are no such instances in this case.

Zz.

 

[humanino]

But IF <A=the existence of the strong nuclear force> is in some part based on the assumption that <B=the EM field equations apply down to the surface of the proton>, and IF <C=EM field equations are known to break down at some point at the atomic level> THEN the onus would be on the proponent of A to show B is true. I don't have to lead evidence for a verdict of 'not proven'.

Andrew, seriously, let us be honest :
C) holds for sure. There is no doubt. I told you everybody uses everyday the standard model down to $$10^{-16}$$m and even less ! We do not see any problem with it. We wish we could find a problem, some would kill to find a small clue for a problem !

B) Sure holds. Here at the lab we throw electrons on protons. No problem. We too apply the standard model more than one order of magnitude smaller than the size of the proton. We probe it down to a scale about one hundredth its size. Its working. I told you we will soon deliver a snapshot of the constituents, and you keep telling us "but you don't know what you're doing"

A) holds too. It explains so many things. We work nuclear plants with it, and satisfactory make calculations about the power of the Sun. We have a simple, symmetry-based model called QCD, from which we can actually prove the most successful model of the nuclear forces : the Skyrme force. You need not understand all the details. This model has been discovered after a long work, mainly based on both satisfying the quantum rules and using semi-classical approximations, and the model was proven to work great ! Only recently did we understand how the model was justified by the fundamental QCD. So now we understand how the forces (Skyrme) between protons and neutrons in the nucleus emerge as residual forces of the interaction between the constituents (QCD) which are quarks and glue. Those are facts. I am telling you, this is worth studying it, there is no reason to doubt about it. Every day in other lab they collide heavy ions, and check the laws in the regime where perturbative technics apply : it works. The instanton models are based on the fundamental QCD, they are able to predict the mass of maybe more than 80% of hadrons within less than 10% accuracy, and we know from the beginning that they are approximations. Really, I swear, it does not make sens to say the strong interaction is spurious ! We can't display in front of your eyes more than half a century of planetary efforts, involving hundreds of thousands of passionated people, all of them eager to find the least flaw anywhere.

Andrew, please, ask serious questions. There are so many informations everywhere. We told you why your first calculation is wrong : you do not even take into account EM. And you answer "but all of you guys are wrong with this" you throw this at our face. This is not fair. We are ready to help you understand what we are doing, but you can't tell us "the entire middle-age history is fake. I did not read it, but I know those little green men erased all they've been doing during thousand years, and replaced it with a fairy tale" What are we supposed to do ? Tell you the all middle-ages history and you point every little detail until you understood we were right ? This is insane ! I am unable to do it anyway ! You have to trust your peers at some point, and as long as nothing comes wrong with what has been said, you cannot redo all the experiments at home !

 

[Andrew Mason]

Andrew, seriously, let us be honest :
C) holds for sure. There is no doubt. I told you everybody uses everyday the standard model down to $$10^{-16}$$m and even less ! We do not see any problem with it. We wish we could find a problem, some would kill to find a small clue for a problem !

I never said there was a problem with the experimental evidence. I am wondering whether there might be more than one explanation for some of it ie. something other than a force. I am trying to determine, without doing a post-graduate program in nuclear physics, what the evidence is for the existence of these strong nuclear forces.

B) Sure holds. Here at the lab we throw electrons on protons. No problem. We too apply the standard model more than one order of magnitude smaller than the size of the proton. We probe it down to a scale about one hundredth its size. Its working. I told you we will soon deliver a snapshot of the constituents, and you keep telling us "but you don't know what you're doing"

I never said that. I simply asked the questions: how do we know that there is a strong nuclear force? and how do we know that protons exert EM repulsive force within the nucleus?

I just thought there might be a simple answer to those questions.

So now we understand how the forces (Skyrme) between protons and neutrons in the nucleus emerge as residual forces of the interaction between the constituents (QCD) which are quarks and glue. Those are facts. I am telling you, this is worth studying it, there is no reason to doubt about it. ...

... Really, I swear, it does not make sense to say the strong interaction is spurious ! We can't display in front of your eyes more than half a century of planetary efforts, involving hundreds of thousands of passionated people, all of them eager to find the least flaw anywhere.

Andrew, please, ask serious questions.

I'll admit my study of physics is rather out of date. I took a couple of courses on quantum physics but most of my understanding of the subject came from Richard Feynman. I will give you a quote from Feynman's Lectures on Physics (Feynman, of course, won the Nobel Prize for his work in quantum electro-dynamics, so I think that he understood QED fairly well):
Vol 1, page 12-12,

"12-6 Nuclear Forces:...

These forces are within the nuclei of atoms, and although they are much discussed, no one has ever calculated the force between two nuclei and indeed at present there is no known law for nuclear forces. These forces have a very tiny range which is just about the same as the size of the nucleus, perhaps $10^{-13}$ centimeter. With particles so small and at such a tiny distance, only the quantum-mechanical laws are valid, not the Newtonian laws. In nuclear analysis we no longer think in terms of forces, and in fact we can replace the force concept with a concept of the energy of interaction of two particles a subject that will be discussed later. Any formula that can be written for nuclear forces is a rather crude approximation which omits many complications; one might be somewhat as follows: forces within a nucleus do not vary inversely as the square of the distance but die off exponentially over a certain distance r, as expressed by $F = (l/r^2) exp(-r/r_0)$ where the distance $r_0$ is of the order of $10^{-13}$ centimeter. In other words, the forces disappear as soon as the particles are any great distance apart, although they are very strong within the $10^{-13}$ centimeter range. So far as they are understood today the laws of nuclear force are very complex: we do not understand them in any simple way and the whole problem of analysing the fundamental machinery behind nuclear forces is unsolved. Attempts at a solution have led to the discovery of numerous strange particles, the $\pi$ mesons, for example, but the origin of these forces remains obscure."


If I can start by updating this paragraph, I might be able to stop annoying everyone with my naive questions. For example, have we been able to measure the force between a proton and a neutron in, say, the deuterium nucleus? Have we been able to measure the nuclear force between two protons in, say, the He nucleus?

Andrew Mason