Jones stated in response to Eric:
<<<This is arguable not true. A degree of Coulomb interaction can be involved at close range with neutrons due to the spatial geometry of charge distribution. Don’t forget the neutron has a magnetic moment, and therefore has at least a near-field or segmented charge. Luis Alvarez discovered the neutron's magnetic moment many moons ago, and there is no doubt about this detail. Now consider at the implications of having magnetic moment and zero net charge. For a particle to have an intrinsic magnetic moment, it must have both spin and electric charge at some level. The neutron has half spin, but no net charge. Now– place the emphasis on the “net” in net charge…… so that when we consider that the neutron is composed of three charged quarks “no net charge” is a relative statement. Consequently, the smaller negative down quark charge (of two down quarks) is technically balanced by the larger up charge of one quark – but there is spatial imbalance at femtometers geometry of this charge due to the location of charge carriers vis-à-vis the center of mass. This is a charge imbalance at close range. A similar oddity is seen when a deuteron approaches another deuteron – there is a bit of geometric shielding of net positive repulsion which is provided by the neutrons of either nucleon, which only appears at close range. >>> From: Eric Walker: <<<The nuclear force is very short range. Ø Here is where I'm inclined to part with conventional wisdom. Consider that 1 barn is the approximate area of a medium-sized nucleus presented to an oncoming neutron, that nuclei such as 135Xe have neutron-capture cross sections of 1e6 barns, and that with a neutron the Coulomb interaction is not involved. Eric – >>> Now, I am even further inclined to part with conventional wisdom. As Hatt has recently suggested, the quark model is merely a good empirical model of protons and neutrons, and is not consistent with all observations of of interactions of primary particles, protons and neutrons and other real particles. Hatt’s model, which suggests that protons, neutrons and other complex particles are made up of many electrons and positrons (about 1800) with their respective intrinsic electric charge, magnetic moment and angular momentum, gives a perfect prediction of rest mass, consistent with experiments for the proton and neutron. My speculation is that the resulting magnetic moments of composite nuclei, including alphas, their net spin and effective interaction cross sections and resonances, result from the instantaneous complex arrangement of electrons and positrons described by a wave function for that particular coherent system. The effective resonances result from the time variance of the wave function. The matching of this time variance of a new particle entering the coherent system’s space is important in any reaction, including the particles with net charge as well as neutral particles such as the neutron. The interaction occurs when the overlap of two coherent systems happen, and it is a possible outcome that angular momentum is conserved as well as total energy, but with a decrease in total potential energy reflecting an increase in entropy. The matching phases of the respective systems—space time relations (time variance)—is a key condition to allow the interaction within an uncertainty of the actual real parameters, momentum, space, time etc. This uncertainty is the “grease” that lubricates all interactions of coherent systems IMHO. It reflects lack of understanding and an empirical theory of nature based on the current state of science with its primitive mathematics compared to what it will take to describe a complex coherent system’s wave function. (Maybe quantum computers will allow resolution of this problem in the future.) Bob Cook I
