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

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

by  Mark Creek-water Dorazio, ApE (amateur-physics-enthusiast),  26 November 2016,  Palo Alto, California, USA, 



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.#1].

However, as an alternative, one can propose the existence of an aether-like substance in our universe, as Dr. Menahem Simhony has done [Refs.#2, #3], and propose that this aether-like substance is what holds the atom’s nucleus together.

If it exists, this stuff would, no doubt, manifest its presence as all of the various fields (electrical, gravitational, etc.), which are supposed to fill the space in our universe, according to the standard model.  And 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 being thin + 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 in 1911, we know that ordinary atoms are thin + wispy + ghost-like, because  ATOMs ARE MOSTLY EMPTY SPACE.  One needs to think deeply regarding 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.


The Electron-positron Lattice Model of Space

Simhony says that an aether-like substance permeates our universe, inter-penetrating all the ordinary matter (composed mainly of atoms) in it.  He says that this aether-like substance is NOT thin and wispy, but very dense, and that 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.#3].  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 “face-centered cubic” structure, like ordinary table-salt, and in fact received the insight and 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 they are at nuclear distances apart, while atoms are usually at atomic distances apart.  For example, according to the model, between the nucleus of a sodium atom and the nucleus of the next chlorine atom in a salt-crystal are approx. 20,000 of the elements which compose the lattice.

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 all the other kinds of electromagnetic radiation), thru itself at the fabled speed of light.

To do this, the lattice must be an elastic substance, able to vibrate at the frequency 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 individual “cells” in the lattice (like little cubical “cubicles” !!) are exactly the right size to allow the passage of average-sized atomic nuclei thru them.  Large nuclei like those of uranium atoms have difficulty passing thru epola-cells because they are just simply too big:  so they tend to break apart (“fission”), forming two smaller nuclei.

Because the nuclei of the atoms which compose our physical bodies are just the right size to easily pass thru epola-cells, we are not aware of the existence of the lattice —– at ordinary speeds:  at high speeds, approaching the speed of light, it’s more difficult for atomic nuclei to pass between the elements which compose the lattice, so they experience interesting and 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 as one is walking:  the nuclei are constantly entering and exiting epola-cells in the lattice:  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:  this weakens the lattice at that location, which causes the epola-cells near the nucleus to back away from each other:  so the epola-cell expands as the nucleus approaches it, reaches maximum volume as the nucleus enters it, and returns to its normal size and shape after the nucleus exits from it.

Because atoms are mostly empty space (a fact which was not known during the 19th century !!) the enter/occupy/exit scenario just described happens to only a very small fraction of the epola-cells at 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.  This is so easy to visualize that, to me, it seems like the truth;  though I know, from arguing with others re this, that others do not feel likewise.  This makes me recall some words from Einstein, who said that he was constantly amazed to see that many very intelligent and highly educated scientists just simply were not able to distinguish between a good theory and a bad one.

Mathematical Description

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.

Using a modified Hooke’s law math-formula  {[ please google “Hooke’s law” if you need to ]}  one can calculate details re how an occupied epola-cell (and also nearby surrounding epola-cells) might behave in response to being occupied by an atom’s nucleus.  Without detailing how I derived them [see Appendix 1 for details] I give here some math-formulas to describe how an atom’s nucleus might interact with the eight [8] epola-elements  which define the occupied epola-cell:

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

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

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

Results of calculations based on these ideas are interesting, and believable:  for example, they seem to indicate that the mass-densities of large atomic nuclei might be significantly greater than the mass-densities of smaller nuclei, which might help explain some of the very weird characteristics of large nuclei like those of uranium and plutonium atoms.  Plus, they enable one to extend the analysis to the supernova remnant, which physicists describe as 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 theoretical numeric value for “Ke” — the elasticity constant of the electron-positron lattice [epola].  Details re this calculation are in Appendix 2.



Based on theoretical work by Sternglass and Simhony, one can say that it might be “push-back” forces from a surrounding aether-like substance (“epola” [Ref.#2]) which holds the nucleus of an atom together, rather than “the interactions of color-charges on quarks and gluons” [Ref.#1].

Though the physics/astronomy community has reached a consensus that the mass-density of a supernova remnant should be approximately that of a neutron, there is no direct evidence for this, and in fact no direct evidence that supernova remnants are composed of neutrons.

In this essay I have presented evidence that the mass-density of a supernova remnant might be significantly greater than that of a neutron, because it might be composed of tiny objects which are smaller and more dense than neutrons [Ref.#9].

Perhaps, for now, we should refer to “neutron stars” as just simply “supernova remnants” —– despite the possibility that the most massive objects of this kind (approx. 2x the mass of our sun) might have formed without an accompanying supernova explosion.



Based on the ideas and numbers presented in this essay, one can predict that, as astronomers learn to make accurate DIRECT measurements of the radius of a supernova remnant, they will agree that the radius of most supernova remnants is nearer to 6 km than to 10 km, and that these objects are composed of tiny objects which are smaller and more dense than neutrons [Ref.#9].


Appendix 1:  Derivation of Math-formulas for Force and Energy

Firstly one re-imagines a cube-shaped epola-cell as a sphere, whose volume is equal to that of an unoccupied cube:  because the normal “lattice length” of a cube-shaped epola-cell is approx. 7.62 x 10^(-13) cm [= 7.62 x 10^(-15) meter] [Ref.#4], it’s normal volume is approx. 4.42 x 10^(-37) cubic centimeter:  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.  This is one of the ways in which I have modified Simhony’s model [Ref.#4]}

One can visualize that a visiting atomic nucleus, at the sphere’s center, causes the sphere’s radius to increase by a small amount as the epola-cell expands:  this is the “ED” [elastic dispalcement] 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 then they push outwardly on the 98 cells which surround them.  So one can reckon that the push-back force is not that simple.

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

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

When “ED” is small, then the force [F] is equal to almost exactly  [Ke] x [ED], which is Hooke’s law.  When “ED” is large, then the force needed to expand the cell by a given amount is greater than that which would be needed under Hooke’s law.  For a hydrogen atom’s nucleus, the expression  (Ro + ED)/(Ro) equals almost exactly 1.0;  as one looks at larger nuclei, the numeric value of the expression gradually increases to approx. 1.3 for the nucleus of a uranium atom.

One can use some easy calculus to integrate the above formula, to calculate the amount of work (=energy) which the visiting atomic nucleus does when it causes the epola-cell to expand.  This gives:

E  =  [Ke] x [ (ED^3)/(3xRo) + (ED^2)/(2) ], as already noted.

One can reckon that this “work” is a measure of the energy-content of the visiting atomic nucleus.


Appendix 2:  Calculating a Numeric Value for “Ke” — the Elasticity Constant of the Electron-positron Lattice (epola)

As already noted, physicists describe the supernova remnant (also called “neutron star” or “pulsar”) as being similar to a single very large atomic nucleus.  Accordingly, one can visualize the supernova remnant as occupying a single epola-cell, which it has caused to expand by a very large amount, from a normal, unoccupied, volume of approx. 4.42 x 10^(-37) cc, to the volume of the supernova remnant, whose radius might be between 5 km and 10 km.

In a previous essay [Ref.#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, given that the mass of the remnant would be less if an explosion followed the collapse.

Why choose 2x the 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.#6].  As I detail in Ref.#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 supernova remnants, also called “neutron stars.”

By doing this, one is guilty of going “beyond” the accepted view in physics, which allows the possibility that an object can collapse down to a zero-volume “singularity” — thus forming a so-called “black hole.”  Please not that there is no compelling evidence for the actual existence of “black holes” —– and that they are presently theoretical objects which have never been observed.  More re this in Ref.#7.

In many books, one can read that there is a “black hole” (or a “supermassive” “black hole”) at the center of many galaxies;  in the theoretical work of Dr. Ernest Sternglass [Ref.#10], 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 “newly created”] neutrons and protons, along with very powerful gamma rays, the most powerful gamma rays which astronomers observe.

Please note also this statement, from Dr. Lloyd Motz (1909-2004), who was for many years the senior member of the Department of Astronomy at Columbia University:

“Accepting the universe as rational … we should reject such irrational concepts as singularities with infinite temperatures and densities in discussing it.  If we can avoid such unphysical concepts rationally, we should do so even if we must depart from current dogma and the presently accepted models” [Ref.#8].

As I detail in Ref.#5:

(1) one can reckon that, based on the model of Dr. Ernest Sternglass [Ref.#10], 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 current 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.



(1)  Dayton, Benjamin;  essay:  “Hydrodynamic Model of Neutral Pion”, Physics Essays, vol. 24, pp. 49-71, (2011);

(2)  Simhony, Menahem;  book:  The Epola Space (1990);

(3)  ibid.;  internet-sites:,

(4)  Dorazio, Mark Creek-water;  essay:  “Lattice Length of the Epola-cell”, 

(5)  ibid.;  essay: “A Semi-classical Calculation regarding the Mass-density of so-called “Neutron Stars”, 

(6)  Demorest, P. B., et al;  essay:  “A Two-solar-mass Neutron Star Measured Using Shapiro Delay”, Nature, (28-October-2010);

(7)  Dorazio, Mark Creek-water;  series of essays:  “Essays Regarding the Work of Dr. Ernest Sternglass and Dr. Menahem Simhony” (2014),

(8)  Motz, Lloyd;  paper:  “The Cosmological Problem:  The Origin and Fate of the Universe”, The Sixteenth International Conference on the Unity of the Sciences, Atlanta, Georgia, November 26-29, 1987, page 6;

(9)  Cartwright, John;  internet-site:

(10)  Sternglass, Ernest;  book:  Before the Big Bang (1997, 2001);

QUOTE FROM REF. #6 (above):  “We measure a pulsar mass of (1.97 +/- 0.04) solar-masses, which is by far the highest precisely measured neutron star mass determined to date [2010]”


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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s


This entry was posted on September 7, 2015 by .
%d bloggers like this: