Nuclear Physics may be Fairly Simple
Atomic Nuclei May Not Contain Neutrons or Neutrinos
Only LOOSE Protons and Electrons may exist inside Atomic Nuclei
Simple math seems to deny that atomic neutrons could exist, as there is no accounting for the required Neutron Self-Binding Energy that is necessary to hold every neutron together. For every neutron, that involves a significant amount of energy (0.78235 MeV) (more than one and a half electron's existence of 0.511 MeV each) that cannot simply appear or disappear a hundred million times every second due to the Conservation of Energy. If the Neutron Self-Binding Energy is (somehow) (mathematically) eliminated, the NIST data for thousands of nuclear processes are incredibly precise, usually to better than ten-digit precision. This then implies that ONLY protons and electrons may exist inside any atomic nucleus.
Here is an example of how the traditional nuclear addition math is incredibly complex: Analyze a very simple nuclear process, a Tritium Beta Decay
Start with a Tritium atom / End with an Helium-3 atomP N N in nucleus (1.007276466879AMU+ 1.00866491588AMU+ 1.00866491588AMU)or a total of 3.024606298639AMU / P P N in nucleus (1.007276466879AMU+ 1.007276466879AMU+ 1.00866491588AMUor a total of 3.023217849638AMU
two electrons are inside those neutrons and two Neutron Self-Binding Energy (0.00083946 AMU + 0.00083946 AMU) or
0.00167892AMU / one electron is inside that neutron and one Neutron Self-Binding Energy
0.00083946AMU
One electron is orbiting 0.000548579909070AMU
This all totals up to 3.026833798548AMU.
But that is wrong according to NIST for Tritium! / Two electrons are orbiting 0.000 548 579 909 070 AMU + 0.000 548 579 909 070 AMU.
The Decay also emits radiation (0.0000199578AMU ).
This all totals up to 3.025174427256AMU.
But that is wrong according to NIST for He-3!
Both nuclei are also claimed to contain an unknown number, possibly two or three, powerful Strong Nuclear Force sources; of unknown Rest Masses and none of which have ever been detected in any experiment.
It is assumed that there are also two or one Neutrinos, which probably don't even exist but which are credited with Nuclear Spin and possibly minimal Rest Mass, none of which have ever been detected
Also various Quarks, and possibly some Strings, Super-Strings and Branes are claimed, none of which has ever been experimentally detected, of unknown quantities, and none of which has any defined Rest Mass.
Pi-Mesons of unknown numbers, which each have a huge Rest Mass of 139.570 Mev, or 0.1498 AMU, or around 270 times the Rest Mass of an electron, allegedly appear and disappear at astounding rates, hundreds of millions of times every second (from some undefined source of all that Rest Mass energy) to enable the Strong Nuclear Force to work. Pions seem to have further problems that no one seems to think about. If they really ARE supposed to have some sort of stabilizing electrostatic effects on the positively charged protons in a nucleus, then they cannot be the "neutral" variety. But then no one explains how powerful positively (or negatively) charged Pions can very suddenly APPEAR, with an electrostatic charge, without violating the Conservation of Electric energy, and then just as suddenly disappear in around a hundred-millionth of a second. These things seem to just be "accepted" (without any logic). Even then, if the actual math of the acceleration of the Protons is calculated, a half-life of a Pion is trillions of times too long to have the allegedly stabilizing effect of the Strong Force and the Pions on the Protons in any atomic nucleus, so even the basic logic cannot remotely be true. Do the math.
The total Rest Mass of all these (alleged) components has never been experimentally or mathematically determined. It is no surprise that no one has ever been able to even remotely confirm that the Conservation of Energy actually applies in nuclear environments.
There are a variety of reasons why that math could never been found to show Conservation of Energy. A major reason has to do with the Neutron Self-Binding Energy. Another is the enormous Rest Mass of all the Pions that allegedly constantly appear and disappear in every nucleus. Another is that no specific Rest Masses were ever found for any of the many types of particles speculated to be inside the nucleus.
Consider instead this very simple math analysis:
Start with a Tritium atom / End with an Helium-3 atomThe ACTUAL NIST Rest Mass of a Tritium atom is 3.016 049 277 9 AMU.
This is therefore a total starting Energy of
3.0160492779 AMU / The ACTUAL NIST Rest Mass of a Helium-3 atom is 3.016 029 320 1 AMU.
NIST Radiation emitted by this Beta-Decay process is 0.0000199578 AMU
This is therefore a total ending Energy of
3.0160492779 AMU
Is this really simple math?
Note that we have ignored the many Neutron Self-Binding Energies, the enormous Rest Mass of Pions appearing and disappearing hundreds of millions of times every second, whatever the Rest Mass of Strong Nuclear Force sources, Neutrinos, Quarks, Strings, Super-Strings, Branes and other speculated things and ONLY considered SEPARATE Protons and Electrons inside of every nucleus.
It might be easier to understand the details of this presentation if a related presentation is read first. Please see Neutrinos Do Not Exist
The US Government has amassed an amazing database, called NIST, which contains really precise atomic rest masses of every one of the thousands of atomic isotopes, all to better than ten significant digit accuracy. For example, the NIST data says that a proton has a rest mass of 1.007276466879 atomic mass units (AMU), and all the other NIST data for rest masses are equally impressive. In 1996, I began a careful examination of that NIST data and I was immediately troubled. I began with a very simple nuclear process, that of a standard Beta-Decay of a Tritium (Hydrogen) atom, where it becomes a Helium-3 atom in an average of about 12 years. Even the new electron which gets produced in that decay is needed to begin orbiting the new Helium-3 atom to keep it neutral. The traditional thinking, using the NIST data, is that the Tritium atom of mass 3.0160492779 AMU to result in a He-3 atom of mass 3.0160293201 AMU along with some radiation emitted (by the NIST data) of 0.0000199578 AMU. Then the process needs to dispose of the rather major Neutron Self-Binding Energy of 0.78235 MeV (which is the same as 0.00083946 AMU) from the neutron which USED TO EXIST inside the Tritium nucleus. Such complicated and speculated math does NOT add up.
Throughout Physics history, no one could ever get that math to behave, and everyone had conceded that Conservation of Energy did not work! Interestingly enough, the math error was nearly always the same, a MISSING huge amount of energy, 0.78235 MeV. In 1996, in the NIST data, I found that was not true, that the math is amazingly accurate, but with one change. Rather than trying to include that Neutron Self-Binding Energy (which you may have noted is about forty times greater than all the radiation given off in that specific Beta-Decay), I noticed that if that (absolutely assumed) Neutron Self-Binding Energy is left out, then the math suddenly works PERFECTLY! I immediately tried this new math reasoning for hundreds of other nuclear processes and found that the MATH ALWAYS WORKS EXACTLY PERFECT.
Modern nuclear physics claims that every atomic nucleus is chock full of immense numbers of (unseen) objects whizzing around. Nearly all of those speculated objects were dreamed up (by Physicists or Mathematicians) to allegedly fix some previous failing of an earlier speculation. Remember Ockham's Razor? Simpler is better? What if the nuclei of atoms are NOT filled with immense assortments of peculiar things, but instead is far more logical and sensible and even simpler than we realize? Ockham may have been right 700 years ago! What if we really do not need a Strong Nuclear Force to try to explain some electrostatic effect that we do not easily understand, in very peculiar ways? What if we do not need trillions of Pi Mesons appearing and disappearing inside every atomic nucleus, just to (allegedly) affect those electrostatic protons, even though the Pi Mesons would necessarily cause all sorts of Conservation of Energy issues in the process? What if there may not actually be all sorts of varieties of Quarks, which seem to keep getting invented every time a new logical problem is noticed? Maybe no "strings" or "super-strings" or "branes" or "26-dimensions all wrapped up in impossibly tiny balls"? Maybe Ockham was right long ago, even about subjects that people of 1300ad had no suspicion about.
Initially, in 1996, I did not understand how the huge amount of energy in the Neutron Self-Binding Energy could be ignored, but the math was so precisely accurate, using the NIST values which are accurate to ten significant figure precision, I had to look deeper. It took a LOT of research, eventually involving seven years (1996-2003) before I realized that inside atomic nuclei, the Protons and Electrons necessarily must be separate, that there ARE NO NEUTRONS in there! That is entirely because the NIST data is so amazingly accurate and it cannot account for any Neutron Self-Binding Energy inside any atomic nuclei. And if the Neutron Self-Binding Energy can somehow be ignored in atomic nuclei, then the math suddenly becomes incredibly accurate. In all that research, I was especially troubled by large atoms such as Uranium, where the traditional thinking is that there are 146 Neutrons inside every nucleus. The traditional thinking would require 146 * 0.78235 MeV or an astronomic amount of "unaccounted energy" in every Uranium nucleus, on the order of 114 Mev of energy in there, just keeping all those Neutrons from Beta-Decaying. (The example of the new precise math for a Uranium atom is included below, where now the math is very comfortably accurate regarding preserving the Conservation of Energy).
The Beta-Decay of Tritium provides a simple and obvious example of where an enormous blunder and many inappropriate complications exist in Nuclear Physics. According to the very reliable government NIST database, a decaying Hydrogen/Tritium atom, 3H1, has a precise atomic rest mass of 3.0160492779 AMU (Atomic Mass Units). By a Beta-Decay process, that atom naturally decays into a resulting Helium-3 atom, 3He2, which has a precise atomic rest mass of 3.0160293201 AMU. The NIST data also confirms that the Tritium atom does the following specific Beta-Decay, 3H1 (Tritium) → 3He2 (Helium-3) + radiation with a half-life of 12.33 years (where the resulting new electron simply begins to revolve around the new Helium nucleus to maintain it as neutral, un-ionized.) It only takes a moment to examine the math of the precise NIST scientific data regarding that Nuclear decay, 3.0160492779 AMU → 3.0160293201 AMU to confirm that the difference between the source and result atoms is EXACTLY +0.0000199578 AMU. That 0.0000199578 AMU is EXACTLY the NIST radiation that also is described as the observed experimental radiation given off of 0.0185906 MeV (in the Beta-Decay of a Tritium atom).
This simple math addition is EXACT! DO THE MATH. It scientifically accounts for ALL the energy and mass involved in that entire atomic structure and decay.
No one before had ever found even approximate values to fit the math of the nuclear processes. People have never even tried to do accurate math because they assumed that quite a few bundles of energy must also be in every atomic nucleus, such as the Neutron Self-Binding Energy of 0.78235 MeV for every neutron inside every nucleus, and lots of Pions (each requiring an enormous 139.0 MeV to create). According to traditional nuclear Physics, every Uranium atom (allegedly) contains 146 Neutrons inside every nucleus which would then also need to have spectacular amounts of Neutron Self-Binding Energies inside every nucleus, and they never could figure out where all that energy could come from! This recent approach provides EXACT mathematical solutions and eliminates many of their math complications!
This same precise math addition has been found to be true regarding all the mass involved in any of many hundreds of other nuclear processes, where the entirety of the mass and energy in existence is accounted for by the mass and energy of protons and electrons. Examples of several types of other nuclear process examples are presented below.
The possible presence inside any atomic nucleus of Neutrons (which each always requires an extra Self-Binding Energy of 0.78235 MeV) really messes up that math, for every neutron involved. A new approach where Protons and Electrons always remain separate inside each nucleus, instead of forming Neutrons, makes exquisite mathematical sense.
In addition, any Neutrinos, any Strong Nuclear Force, any Pions (which require 139.57 MeV each) or a Weak Nuclear Force and other exotic objects would also each necessarily involve additional energy, and each of those would also disrupt this amazingly precise mathematical energy accounting.
Such traditional complications of other objects inside any atomic nucleus seem simply not mathematically or logically possible! The fact is that the highly respected NIST data, accurate to better than ten decimal place precision, does not seem to permit the mathematical provision, or energy, for any of them! This is a rather peculiar perspective for a Theoretical Physicist, educated at the University of Chicago, to have!
I encourage all interested readers to also carefully examine the characteristics given to the Strong Nuclear Force and the Pions within atomic nuclei, both dreamed up around 1930. They include several outrageous assumptions that have never had any experimental confirmation! For example, the Strong Force is supposed to not behave like any of the other basic forces of the Universe, of only acting within an unbelievably tiny distance range (usually described as about 2 femtometers or 2 * 10-15 meters, which is not even the dimensions of any atomic nucleus.) That was claimed without any experimental evidence or proof, and ONLY because they needed the Strong to NOT affect anything beyond the nucleus! Then they imagined that it was a truly weird force in acting to usually attract other objects except if the objects get too close, it then instantly REVERSES and repels them! Again, without any evidence or proof or experimental hints! The Strong Force is also imagined to have a strange distance dependency, where one Professor of mine at the University of Chicago told us students that it acted as an Inverse-FIFTH-Power distance dependency. However, other of those Professors had told us that it was an Inverse-THIRD-Power distance dependency. It cannot be both! But again, in 80 years of thousands of Physicists doing experiments since then, no one has ever done any experiment that might suggest either of those to be true. But when you then add that the Strong Force usually attracts but sometimes repels then any logical argument that a Strong Nuclear Force even exists, with any claim to any distance dependency seems pretty questionable.