The Strong Force: Tell me another one

[dalemiller]

How many of us cannot get our heads around the strong force? I think it is what is supposed to keep fused protons from parting. Well, about seven years ago a similar answer hit me before any realization of the related question: Charged rain drops repel each other more the closer they get until, bingo, once two of them touch they become as one. Sure, but they have become enclosed within a single membrane where the charge is distributed. The new skin has less area than the total of the previous two, but that is OK because the consequentially increased electron crowding represents a higher potential surrounding that given volume of water. It is just another step in the process of approaching lightning formation.

 

Why, if that thought could be painless does it hurt to think of protons ganging together? It is no bother if one thinks of positrons as proton enclosures or nucleus enclosures instead of little dots! They could zip around by themselves as dots but still gobble nuclei, maybe as layers or just big smears. Deferring repulsion to such outer layers would leave enclosed protons equivalent to neutrons. Would matter that a proton might have swapped status with a neutron at any checkout time?

 

Apology to understanderers of the strong force, but little people have to make do with less brains than what that takes, and some of us have to get through the day on pretty short rations.

[Sisyphus]

So what's the equivalent to the surface tension holding the raindrop together?

[swansont]

There is an equivalent to surface tension in a nucleus, and its behavior like a liquid drop helps explain the fission process. But it's due to the strong force.

 

Surface tension in a water droplet is an electrostatic force. But the number of charges is small compared to the number of molecules of water in a droplet, which is the only way a small attractive force could overcome the repulsion. If every molecule was charged this would not happen — it would not even be close. In a nucleus, somewhere between 1/2 and 1/3 of the particles are protons. There is no way for an electrostatic surface tension to cause the amount of attraction needed, even if protons were polar like water molecules are (and would need to be ~ a million times bigger, like the molecule). Further, with an electrostatic phenomenon you have no explanation for neutrons and why they are there, and what holds them in place. They should be easy to knock out, being uncharged, but they aren't; it takes about the same energy to do this as for a proton. On average, it takes more — by the amount of electrostatic repulsion that protons feel and neutrons don't. The attraction can't be electrostatic in nature. The numbers simply don't add up.

[dalemiller]

There is an equivalent to surface tension in a nucleus, and its behavior like a liquid drop helps explain the fission process. But it's due to the strong force.

 

Surface tension in a water droplet is an electrostatic force. But the number of charges is small compared to the number of molecules of water in a droplet, which is the only way a small attractive force could overcome the repulsion. If every molecule was charged this would not happen — it would not even be close. In a nucleus, somewhere between 1/2 and 1/3 of the particles are protons. There is no way for an electrostatic surface tension to cause the amount of attraction needed, even if protons were polar like water molecules are (and would need to be ~ a million times bigger, like the molecule). Further, with an electrostatic phenomenon you have no explanation for neutrons and why they are there, and what holds them in place. They should be easy to knock out, being uncharged, but they aren't; it takes about the same energy to do this as for a proton. On average, it takes more — by the amount of electrostatic repulsion that protons feel and neutrons don't. The attraction can't be electrostatic in nature. The numbers simply don't add up.

 

My thought is so preposterous that it calls for this re-emphasis: The little bitty positrons that sort of mirror electrons are taken here to emerge as the stuff of the outer coating of nuclear material; taken from the protons to leave them as neutrons with no push. By promoting all electrostatic charge to enveloping nuclear surface, no repulsive force would remain within. Loosely, the idea is that all electrostatic repulsion shifts to exterior surface as positrons somehow prompted by a "contacting" proton sneak out of the protons, gobble up the nucleus (think of a garden snake swallowing an elephant) to thus engage a new proton into nuclear membership.

 

Likewise with the raindrops, there is no electrostatic push from interior molecules of water: All of the electric charge is in the skin of the raindrop. Typical increase of negative voltage develops not from importation of added electrons, but merely from crowding of ions closer together as total skin area falls off during raindrop enlargement.

[swansont]

What positrons? There are no positrons in a nucleus.

[dalemiller]

What positrons? There are no positrons in a nucleus.

Heard tell there are protons in there. Am here to speculate that a proton is a neutron with a positron halo. When a positron is alone it might be a little dot shaped like an electron. On this second day with this hypothesis, it seems easier to think that the proton's positive charge is its positron halo, and that larger nuclei are enclosed by halos of compounded positrons. Such halos are analogous to raindrop skins of like charge whereby any two separate particles repel each other until they are nevertheless brought into contact. Once they touch, a unified skin encloses placid uncharged material. More skosh, will seek to cite source asserting existence of positrons.

[Bignose]

Here's the problem. The evidence behind protons being composed of 2 up quarks and 1 down quark is pretty strong. Start with M. Breidenbach (1969). "Observed Behavior of Highly Inelastic Electron-Proton Scattering". Physical Review Letters 23 (16): 935–939, as a start. In Breidenbach's results, he reported observing three point-like bodies inside a proton -- why didn't he report this "positron halo"?

 

Might I suggest you read up on why the standard model has become the standard model? The model didn't become the model just because it was the nicest or prettiest or everyone's favorite. It has become the model because it fits the experimental evidence the best.

 

So, in order to further your idea, you will need to demonstrate how your idea describes every single experimental result to date, at least as well or better than the current model. Starting with why the first experiments to demonstrate the existence of quarks found only 3 point-like bodies as the structure of a proton, and not your halo.

[swansont]

Here is another problem: how does the confinement of a "positron halo" near the neutron fit in with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? Oh, and where does the neutrino come from when a proton decays, if the positron already exists — why is Lepton number not conserved? Since neutrons are unstable, why don't protons decay, if they are really neutrons? And what force keeps this positron in the vicinity of the neutron? How do neutrons attract protons if they have a neutral charge? How do you explain the binding energy of a deuteron (2.2 MeV) electrostatically?

[dalemiller]

Here's the problem. The evidence behind protons being composed of 2 up quarks and 1 down quark is pretty strong. Start with M. Breidenbach (1969). "Observed Behavior of Highly Inelastic Electron-Proton Scattering". Physical Review Letters 23 (16): 935–939, as a start. In Breidenbach's results, he reported observing three point-like bodies inside a proton -- why didn't he report this "positron halo"?

 

Might I suggest you read up on why the standard model has become the standard model? The model didn't become the model just because it was the nicest or prettiest or everyone's favorite. It has become the model because it fits the experimental evidence the best.

 

So, in order to further your idea, you will need to demonstrate how your idea describes every single experimental result to date, at least as well or better than the current model. Starting with why the first experiments to demonstrate the existence of quarks found only 3 point-like bodies as the structure of a proton, and not your halo.

 

My notions about this are little more than 48 hours old. When subsequent research brought me to up and down quarks I ran away. The analogy of raindrops haunts my picture of fusing protons. The concept needn't hang on proton shape. If the charge upon protons were in any fashion to dwell or travel about an outer envelope of a nucleus, or thread amongst its protons in some fashion that externalizes electric charge out from between the protons, then the mysterious strong force could get out of my life.

 

Thank you very much for pointing me to sources you find credible. Perhaps disappointment with the state of meteorology and astrophysics has impaired my credulity. Will try as you advise, but work so slow that it might take several more lifetimes.

 

Here is another problem: how does the confinement of a "positron halo" near the neutron fit in with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? Oh, and where does the neutrino come from when a proton decays, if the positron already exists — why is Lepton number not conserved? Since neutrons are unstable, why don't protons decay, if they are really neutrons? And what force keeps this positron in the vicinity of the neutron? How do neutrons attract protons if they have a neutral charge? How do you explain the binding energy of a deuteron (2.2 MeV) electrostatically?

I see your point: I do not know all that stuff inside out. Have been very busy doing a lot of other stuff. Next lifetime, will do better. Declaring myself as not even aspiring to become a quantum mechanic might explain why my head is swimming so here.

Speculation can bring one's thinking to selecting examples seeming to be plausible exercises of the speculated principle. I happily withdraw unnecessary details of example simply to suggest that some validity may be hiding in the comparison of merging of charged raindrops with the fusion of protons. Thereby, my innocence of esoteric studies is a luxury I can enjoy.

 

It seems that a lot of accounting is being asked for, but not to return to face it seems like shameful retreat. Lets face it, none of us are playing with a full deck and my ultimate goal is to improve on that situation.

As for the uncertainty principal, always leave enough tolerance to allow for whatever uncertainties to which we must fall.

However, I think you refer to decay of protons as occasions for some emergence of a neutrino, but then seem to imply that protons do not decay. My response should await clarification on proton degradability. I didn't even know that neutrons do decay.

Honestly, I did not realize that Lepton number was not being conserved and am now frankly out way out over my head.

If I have asserted that neutrons attract protons, I can only plead Gravity. I never explain the binding energy of a deuteron.

 

What happened to me was to read about fusion of four protons into production of a helium atom. They fooled me by showing a positron and neutron to emerge in a merger that deleted one proton. Like a dummy, because I mainly keep my eye on the electricity ball, your would-be informant figured that old proton to be just a neutron with a positron in it, and didn't even worry about any other particles got involved. Just being in a speculations forum led me to let down my guard. Sorry about that.

Edited August 9, 2010 by dalemiller

[Cropduster23]

Being speculative within the reasonable limits of what is already known is perfectly fine - that's how science gets done. At least, that's how the theory gets done. The problem, of course, is that Physics already has a very good, phenomenon-fitting model of Hadrons (the family name for protons, neutrons, and other particles made of 3 quarks) that was not already understood by you, and of course it is not expected that you reproduce 50+ years of particle theory on your own in one day just by standing around and thinking about it in the shower. However, if you wish to understand what is already known about the structure of Hadrons and the various ways they can decay into radiation, then you already know where it look for the answers - the theory of the strong force.

 

A good rule of thumb for analogizing quantum-scale forces was first discovered by the fathers of quantum theory and it is:

Electrostatics is usually not the correct answer. Very much not.