CHAPTER 7:  A New Treatment for an Old Problem:  What Holds an Atom’s Nucleus Together ??

“God is very mysterious, but not malicious” —–Einstein


The current accepted view in physics is that the “strong nuclear force” is what holds an atom’s nucleus together, and is due to “the interactions of color-charges on quarks and gluons” as one PhD-holder expresses it [Ref.#45].

However, as an alternative, one can propose the existence of an aether-like substance, as Dr. Menahem Simhony, (another PhD-holder), has done [Refs. #2 + #2a], and propose that this aether-like substance might be what holds the atom’s nucleus together.

Just as the various “fields” in our universe are supposed to interact with atoms and molecules, the “epola” in Simhony’s model is likewise supposed to interact with atoms and molecules.

This modernized version of “aether” is quite different from the theoretical “aether” of 19th-century scientists like Maxwell and Faraday, some of whom visualized their “aether” as thin and wispy, exactly as the word implies:  “aetheric” or “aethereal” means thin, wispy, ghost-like.

We now know better:  since Ernest Rutherford discovered the atomic nucleus (1911), we know that ordinary atoms are thin and wispy and ghost-like, because ATOMs ARE MOSTLY EMPTY SPACE.  One needs to think deeply re the implications of this amazing fact to understand how Dr. Simhony’s model works.

The purpose of this essay is to suggest that Simhony’s model might be essentially correct, and also to suggest that so-called “neutron stars might be composed of objects which are smaller and more dense than neutrons.



Simhony says that an aether-like substance permeates our universe, inter-penetrating all the ordinary matter (composed mainly of atoms) in it.  According to his model, this substance is NOT thin or wispy, but very dense, and the elements which compose it are “bound to one another by a binding energy … a hundred thousand times the binding energies of the strongest bound atomic solids” [Ref.#2].  He calls this stuff “EPOLA”, —(short for “electron-positron lattice”)— because he says that it consists of nothing but electrons + positrons, arranged in a lattice which is held together by electromagnetic forces.

He says that this lattice has a cubic structure, like that of salt crystals, and in fact received the inspiration to develop his model while working in a physics lab doing “solid state” research with salt-crystals.  He says that the elements which compose the lattice are much much nearer to each other than the atoms which compose the ordinary stuff in our universe, because the elements which compose the lattice are at nuclear distances from each other, while atoms are usually at atomic distances apart.  For example, between the nucleus of a sodium atom and the nucleus of the next chlorine atom in a salt-crystal, there are more than 20,000 of the little rascals which compose the electron-positron lattice.

Simhony says that, like salt-crystals, the lattice is of a “face-centered cubic” structure.

Because the lattice has a crystal-like structure, each of the many zillions of elements which compose it is tightly bound to its place in the lattice:  so tightly that the lattice can carry light, (and other kinds of electromagnetic radiations), through itself at the fabled speed of light.

To do this, the lattice must be an elastic substance, whose individual elements are able to vibrate at the frequencies of the electromagnetic radiations which pass thru it.  Please note that a substance can be both “elastic” and “stiff”:  many things are:  billiard-balls for example:  only because they are elastic can they collide and then smoothly bounce apart.

Because it’s of a cubical structure, one can visualize that the individual “cells” in the lattice, (like little cubical “cubicles” !!), are just the right size to allow average-sized atomic nuclei to pass thru them.  Large nuclei like those of uranium atoms have difficulty passing through epola-cells, because they’re just simply too big:  so they tend to break apart (fission), forming smaller nuclei.

Because the nuclei of the atoms which form our physical bodies are just the right size to easily pass through epola-cells, we are not normally aware of the existence of the lattice — at ordinary speeds, that is:  at high speeds, approaching the speed of light, it’s more difficult for nuclei to pass through epola-cells, so they experience interestingly unexpected “relativistic” effects, which physicists can measure and study.

***        ***        ***        ***        ***        ***        ***        ***

One can visualize the nuclei in the atoms in a silver coin in one’s pocket moving thru the surrounding epo-lattice as one walks:  as a silver atom’s nucleus approaches an epola-cell, the magnetic forces associated with the nucleus interact with [i.e., interfere with] the magnetic forces which hold the lattice together, which weakens the lattice at that location, which causes the eight epola-elements which compose that epola-cell to back away from each other:  so the epola-cell expands as the atom’s nucleus approaches it, reaches maximum volume as the nucleus enters it, and returns to normal after the nucleus exits from it.

Because atoms are mostly empty space, (a fact which was NOT KNOWN during the 1800s !!), the enter/occupy/exit scenario just described happens to only a very small fraction of the epola-cells at any given location during any given time:  i.e., at every moment in time, the vast majority of epola-cells in our universe are almost totally unaffected by the movements of ordinary matter.  One needs to think deeply re the implications of this idea to understand how Dr. Simhony’s model works.



Given that a visiting atomic nucleus causes a visited epola-cell to expand, and given that the epola is an elastic substance, one can visualize that the epola-elements which surround the visited epola-cell also move outwardly.  Plus, one can visualize that all of the displaced epola-elements PUSH BACK when this happens, and one can visualize that this PUSH-BACK from surrounding epola-stuff might be what holds the atomic nucleus together —– preventing the protons in it from flying apart due to their mutual electrical repulsions.

One can describe the epola-cell’s expansion in terms of “Hooke’s Law” —–which appears in every Physics-101 textbook in the entire known universe.  But it’s a bit more complicated than the description of a weight bobbing up + down on a spring, because an expanded epola-cell pushes on the 26 [twenty-six] cells which surround it, and THEY push on the 98 [ninety-eight] cells which surround THEM:  after trying several modified Hooke’s-law type math-formulas, including some which contained an exponential term, I settled on the following:

F = [Ke] x [ED] x [(R0 + ED) / (Ro)];   and

E = [Ke] x [ (ED^3)/(3xRo) + (ED^2)/2 ] …

Here,  “E”  represents the energy-content of the visiting atomic nucleus,   “F”  represents the push-back force which surrounding epola-stuff exerts on the visiting atomic nucleus,   “Ke”  represents the elasticity-constant of the epo-lattice, analogous to the “k” in Hooke’s law,   “ED”  represents the outward elastic displacement of the outer-edge of the visited epola-cell,  re-visualized as a SPHERE instead of a cube,  and  “Ro”  represents the initial-radius of this sphere, visualized as having a volume equal to that of an unoccupied epola-cell.

Using the two math-formulas above, one can calculate the numeric values to create a graph [Figure 3] which shows the energy content of an object as a function of elastic displacement of the epola-cell which the object inhabits, during the short time before it moves on to occupy (i.e., “visit” — as Simhony says) other epola-cells.  One can interpret this graph to say that the mass-density of larger nuclei, such as those of gold and uranium, might be significantly greater than the mass-density of smaller nuclei, due to significantly stronger “push-back” from surrounding epola-elements;

Plus:  one can say that this “push-back” from the epo-lattice might be equivalent to the so-called “strong nuclear force” —– which is said to prevent the protons in an atom’s nucleus from flying outwardly due to their mutual repulsion. 

And one can extend these results to describe supernova remnants, which physicists say are analogous to a single very large atomic nucleus !!

In fact, it was ONLY by looking at the supernova remnant (also called “neutron star” or “pulsar”) that I was able to calculate a numeric value for “Ke” — the elasticity constant of the electron-positron lattice.  See Part 4, below, for details.



Firstly one re-imagines a cube-shaped epola-cell as a sphere whose volume is equal to that of an unoccupied epola-cell.  Because the normal “lattice-length” of an unoccupied epola-cell is approx. 7.62 x 10^(-13) cm {= 7.62 x 10^(-15) meter [Ref.#6]}, its normal volume is approx. 4.42 x 10^(-37) cc.  A sphere with this volume has a radius of approx. 4.72 x 10^(-13) cm.  This is the “Ro” in the equations.

{Please note that the lattice-length given in the previous paragraph is different from that which Simhony gives.  As described in the previous chapter (Chapter 6), this is one of the modifications which I have made to Simhony’s model}

With a “visiting” atomic nucleus at the sphere’s center, one visualizes that the sphere’s radius increases by a small amount, the “ED” [elastic displacement] in the math formulas.  In Hooke’s Law, the resulting push-back force is proportional to this elastic displacement (also called “amplitude”),  and “Ke” is the proportionality-constant:  i.e., Hooke’s Law says that

F  =  [Ke] x [ED]  =  [Ke] x [amplitude].

But the situation here is more complicated than the “simple harmonic motion” which Hooke’s Law describes:  because, as an epola-cell expands, it presses outwardly on the 26 cells which surround it, and they press on the 98 cells which surround them, and so on. So one can reckon that the push-back force is not linear.

After trying several different options, (including options in which the push-back force increases exponentially), I decided on a quadratic equation for force:

   F = [Ke] x [ED] x [(Ro + ED) / Ro];

Inspecting the equation reveals that the factor  (Ro + ED) / Ro  starts at a value very close to 1.0 when ED << Ro, as it is with a hydrogen atom’s nuceus.  As one looks at larger and heavier nuclei, the factor increases, gradually, to approximately 1.3 in the case of a uranium atom’s nucleus.

One can integrate this expression to calculate the amount of work (= energy) which the visiting atomic nucleus does when it causes the epola-cell to expand.  This leads to:           E  =  [Ke] x [ (ED^2)/2 + (ED^3)/(3xRo) ],  as already mentioned.  One can reckon that this “work” is a measure of the energy-content of the visiting atomic nucleus.



As already mentioned, physicists describe a supernova remnant (also called “neutron star” or “pulsar”) as being similar to a single very large atomic nucleus !! 

Accordingly, one can visualize a supernova remnant as occupying a single epola-cell, which it has caused to expand by a very large factor, from a normal, unoccupied, volume of only 4.42 x 10^(-37) cc, to the volume of the supernova remnant, whose radius is between  5 km and 10 km;  i.e., between  5 x 10^5 cm  and  10 x 10^5 cm.

In CHAPTER 5 I detail how one can consider an “ideal” supernova remnant as one which forms when a star whose initial mass is only approx. 2x that of our sun collapses and does not explode, thereby forming the most-massive remnant possible, because the mass would be less if an explosion followed the collapse.

Why choose  [2 x (mass of our sun)]  as the mass of an “ideal” supernova remnant ??  Because, as of 2010, it seems that this was “by far the highest precisely measured neutron star mass determined to date” [Ref.#15].  As I detail in CHAPTER 5, one can consider this “ideal” supernova remnant as being the most-massive “neutron star” possible,  if there is in our universe a maximum mass-density for compact objects like “neutron stars”.

Admittedly, by assuming this possibility, one is guilty of going “beyond” the accepted view in physics, which assumes the possibility that an object can collapse down to zero-volume a “singularity” — creating a so-called “black hole”.  Please note that, for a skeptic, there is still [2016] no compelling evidence for the actual existence of “black holes” — and that they are presently theoretical objects which have never been observed.

In many books, one can read that there is a “black hole” (or a “supermassive” “black hole”) at the center of many galaxies;  likewise, in Sternglass’s model, one can expect to find a very massive object at the center of a galaxy, but this object is more like a “white hole” than a “black hole”.  NOTHING GETS SUCKED IN, AND MASSIVE QUANTITIES OF STUFF COME OUT, including newly formed [one wants to say “created”] neutrons and protons, along with very powerful gamma rays.



As I detail in CHAPTER 5:

(1) one can reckon that, based on the model of Dr. Ernest Sternglass [Refs.#1 and 1a], there might be a maximum mass-density for objects in our universe, of approximately 5 x 10^(15) grams/cc;

(2) one can reckon that supernova remnants might be composed of tiny objects which are smaller and more dense than neutrons, each of whose mass-density is approximately the maximum mentioned in (1) above;

(3) if so, then a supernova remnant whose mass is approx. 2x that of our sun would have a radius of approx. 5.6 km, which is LESS THAN the accepted view in physics.

Please note that a recent conversation which I pursued on a popular physics internet-site produced no compelling evidence that astronomers have ever measured the radius of a supernova remnant DIRECTLY, as evidently there are none which are near enough to us for them to be able to do so.

Obviously, the physics/astronomy community has reached a consensus that the mass-density of a supernova remnant must be approximately equal to that of a neutron, (i.e., approx. 3 x 10^14 grams/cc), even though there is no direct evidence for this, and also no direct evidence that supernova remnants are composed of neutrons.

As already mentioned, one can reckon that, based on the ideas of Sternglass and Simhony, so-called “neutron stars” might be composed of tiny objects which are smaller and more dense than neutrons [Ref.#28].  Perhaps we should, for now, refer to “neutron stars” as just simply “supernova remnants”.



Based on the ideas and the numbers presented in this essay, one can predict that as astronomers learn to more-accurately measure the radii of nearby supernova remnants, they will realize that these objects are smaller than the currently accepted 10-km radius, and that they are composed of objects which are smaller and more dense than neutrons.

Sincerely,  Mark Creek-water Dorazio,  ApE (amateur physics enthusiast),

Palo Alto, California, USA,  12 January 2017

########### << END OF CHAPTER 7 >> ###########




  2. Pingback: REFERENCEs + APPENDIXs 1 and 2 | markcreekwater

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


This entry was posted on December 25, 2014 by .
%d bloggers like this: