Nuclear Alternative: Redesigning Our Model of the Structure of Matter

By William L. Stubbs

The Standard Model has been the model of choice for nuclear structure since the late 1960s. However, 40 years later, scientists are still struggling to validate it. Nuclear Alternative offers an alternative explanation for the structure of matter that uses particles and forces observed and characterized since the 1930s. By redesigning the models of the proton, neutron, and electron, and developing a nuclear binding mechanism similar to covalent bonds in atoms, the book systematically develops models for more than 250 stable nuclei. It then uses the models to explain alpha and beta decay, and nuclear fission and fusion.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris US
• Release date: Jun 12, 2008
• ISBN: 9781469120737

William L. Stubbs

William L. Stubbs is a retired nuclear engineer who worked for nearly 30 years for the Federal Government and in the private sector. During his career, he designed and analyzed nuclear reactor cores, developed computer models of nuclear systems, and managed the disposal of radioactive wastes.

Book preview

Copyright © 2008 by William L. Stubbs.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

To order additional copies of this book, contact:

Xlibris Corporation

1-888-795-4274

www.Xlibris.com

[e-mail]

47744

For Janice

Contents

1 SOMETHING IS NOT RIGHT

2 ONE PROBLEM AFTER ANOTHER

3 BELIEVE SOME OF WHAT YOU SEE

4 A DISTURBANCE IN THE FORCE

5 IT’S SO SIMPLE

6 FORKS IN THE ROAD

7 READING BETWEEN THE LINES

8 ALL THINGS GOOD MUST END

9 THEY CAN’T HIDE FOREVER

10 IT’S A HIT

11 FANCY BUMPING INTO YOU

12 THE ALPHA-BETA THEORY OF THE NUCLEUS

Appendix

Glossary of New Terms

Bibliography

Preface

As a young child growing up in Miami, Florida, I was intrigued by chemistry and astronomy. I spent late nights watching movies of scientists in large, impressive laboratories creating amazing things, and fantasized about doing the same. I also spent my nights looking at the sky, studying the moon, searching for constellations, and occasionally locating planets such as Venus and Mars. I was sure that as an adult I would be a scientist in one or both of these fields of study. Then, in seventh grade, I read the book Energy Does Matter, by Emmerich Werner. The book introduced me to atomic energy, and nuclear science has been my passion since.

Determined to realize my dream of being a nuclear scientist, I studied nuclear engineering at the University of Tennessee during the mid 1970s. Even though engineering studies tend to focus on the practical aspects of the sciences, the coursework included classes in modern and nuclear physics. As a student, it is easy (and probably normal) to assume that everything you are being taught is nothing short of absolute truth. Your grades and your ultimate success depend on you consuming, believing, and regurgitating the knowledge the professors bestow upon you. However, for some reason, something just did not seem right about what my atomic physics and nuclear physics classes offered me. It was hard to believe that nature assembled itself in such a convoluted way. But, the goal at that time was to get my degree, so I had little choice but to conform.

It was not until after I left the University that I began looking into my uneasiness about atomic and nuclear theory. While working as a nuclear engineer in Pittsburgh, in my spare time I attempted to formulate simpler explanations of nuclear phenomena such as structure and binding with little success. However, I began to realize that some of the things I had been taught were not necessarily absolute truth. It was at that point that I also realized, in order to approach this problem effectively; I would have to unlearn essentially all that I had been taught in atomic and nuclear physics in the past. What I thought I knew on the subjects was keeping me from seeing what the experiments and data were actually revealing.

Learning not to take for granted that everything I was taught in school was indisputable was a slow, but steady journey. Finally, in 1993, a breakthrough occurred. I was sitting in the Aiken Mall in South Carolina after work, waiting to go tutor mathematics at my church, when it dawned on me that protons and neutrons might be made of beta particles. I had been taught long ago that beta particles did not reside in the nucleus, but had not realized that the assertion was made because betas in the nucleus did not fit the theory scientists were attempting to validate at the time. Looking back, that the beta particle just appears during the decay in the theory I was taught should have been a red flag from the start. I was young and naïve.

After that, things began to fall in place, and by 1995, I had formulated the main aspects of my model, although the model then was primitive compared to today’s version. Being naïve, again, I attempted to publish the theory, not realizing that the nuclear and theoretical physics communities are somewhat exclusive societies, requiring certain credentials for acceptance and acknowledgement, regardless of what one has to offer. I documented my theory in a 1996 unpublished work entitled The Molecular Theory of the Nucleus, and even attempted to present the theory at a conference in 1998, with no success. Since that time, I have worked to refine the theory, and it has evolved into the alpha-beta theory presented here.

The alpha-beta theory of the nucleus was born out of the idea that the structures and mechanisms that make up the nucleus of the atom should not be bizarre or exotic, but should be simple, and resemble other systems found in nature. Its purpose is to show that relatively simple explanations are available for nuclear structure and behavior that produce consistent and accurate results.

The book begins by questioning the current nuclear theory and its proponents in a spirit reminiscent of the character Howard Beale in the 1976 movie Network. An evening news reporter telling people that if they wanted the world to get better they could not continue to be complacent, they had to get mad; Beale summons his audience to go to their windows and shout the phrase, I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore! Similarly, the first chapter speaks to how comfortable the scientific community has become with just searching for the same things, year in and year out, regardless of the outcome of their efforts. It points out that a lot of time and money have been, and continue to be, invested in these pursuits with little in the way of practical benefits realized. It questions the long-term commitment made to continue these efforts, and declares, Something is not right, let’s take another look at this!

The second chapter attempts to give a brief history of the atom and the nucleus. It tries to show the difficulties people encountered through the years, both personal and professional, trying to characterize the fundamental aspects of matter. It also highlights the seemingly never-ending parade of problems encountered with nearly every model adjustment made to accommodate new findings.

From that point on, the alpha-beta theory is developed, beginning with the models of the proton, the electron, and the neutron in Chapter 3. A discussion of the mechanisms for nuclear binding follows in Chapter 4, models of stable alpha-multiple nuclei through zinc-64 are presented in Chapters 5 and 6, and more models of stable nuclei are discussed in Chapter 7. Alpha decay and beta decay are discussed in Chapter 8 and Chapter 9; and nuclear fission and nuclear fusion briefly addressed in Chapters 10 and 11. Chapter 12 attempts to summarize alpha-beta theory and contrast it to the currently accepted nuclear theory. An appendix is included that compares nuclear masses determined using the alpha-beta model to measured values, and a brief glossary of the new terms presented in the discussion is also provided.

As is the fate of many presentations of new ideas, it will not surprise me if alpha-beta theory encounters skepticism, ridicule, and resistance. The theory challenges some long-time tenants of nuclear physics, and threatens the foundation of traditional nuclear theory. However, this theory is being offered with the hope that some new avenues of thought will now be opened and explored, and that some existing pursuits will be scrutinized and objectively evaluated based on their current merits and performance.

Finally, regardless of how well received these ideas are, I hope this undertaking inspires up and coming scientists, as well as established professionals, to never stop challenging the accepted views of the world around them. It is too easy to live with minor problems just because major attributes appear to be addressed. And always opt for the simple, recurring themes. Imagination is a wonderful thing, but if investigations start leading to ideas that are out of this world, they probably are not of this world. It seems that, in the end, nature always takes the easy way out as opposed to the incredible way.

William L. Stubbs

Port St. Lucie, FL

March 2008

1

SOMETHING IS NOT RIGHT

A crisis began developing during the twentieth century that continues to unfold even as you read these words. Its consequences are so gradual, and so subtle, that you will probably never hear about it on the evening news, or read about it in newspapers or magazines. This crisis is not about healthcare, national security, or moral decay. The crisis referred to here is the failed efforts by scientists to develop a credible working model of the atomic nucleus. Consequently, we are really no closer to understanding the structure and nature of the atomic nucleus today than we were just after World War II.

Over the last one hundred years, scientists studying the atom performed countless experiments, generating a wealth of data and knowledge about the behavior and structure of the atom. While these efforts produced the many advances in chemistry that enrich our daily lives, advances in materials, fuels, electronics and pharmaceuticals to name a few; these advances come primarily from controlling and manipulating the electrons of atoms. Nuclear advances, advances in controlling and manipulating the nucleus of the atom to benefit humanity, have been all but nonexistent since the early 1950s. Often confused with radiological advances that use nuclear disintegration or radioactive decay for applications such as tracing, imaging and tissue destruction; nuclear advances go beyond merely exploiting the radiation that nuclei give off naturally.

Nuclear fission, the splitting of a heavy nucleus to produce energy; nuclear fusion, squeezing light nuclei together to produce energy; and isotope production, bombarding the nucleus of an isotope with particles to create a new isotope; all involve deliberately changing the nuclei of atoms to benefit mankind in some way. These processes are the primary nuclear applications in use today. All were known and in use by 1950, and were instrumental in developing nuclear weapons during and just after World War II. Nuclear fission and isotope production found peacetime applications in areas such as power production and medicine. Peacetime application of nuclear fusion, a potentially limitless power source, continues to elude scientists in spite of more than 40 years of work to make it a reality.

The nucleus of an atom is like the atom’s DNA. It determines what the atom is and how it behaves. However, scientists still have not cracked the code associated with the nucleus to make it a viable technological resource. The nucleus determines the electron structure of the atom, which, in turn, determines the atom’s chemistry. It determines the atom’s stability, and the utility of the atom. For example, both calcium and argon have isotopes with mass numbers of 40, meaning they contain a total of 40 proton and neutrons. However, because argon contains only 18 protons, it does not react chemically with other elements, but calcium, with 20 protons is very reactive. Hydrogen-3 and helium-3 both contain a total of three protons and neutrons, and have essentially the same mass. However, hydrogen-3, with two neutrons and one proton is radioactive, whereas helium-3 with two protons and one neutron is stable. Finally, boron-10 and boron-11 both have the same electron configuration, but boron-10 is an extremely effective neutron absorber, whereas boron-11 is not. The current nuclear theories cannot adequately explain these behaviors.

The lack of progress in cultivating the atomic nucleus likely prevails because the model of the nucleus that evolved since the 1950s contains postulated particles and forces that do not appear to exist in nature. That is, theories postulate that the particles and forces exist and rely on their existence for validity. However, after years of searching, scientists have yet to find these particles and forces in nature. Year after year scientists and politicians continue to pour millions of research hours and billions of taxpayer dollars into futile attempts to find these phantom particles and characterize these forces with no success. The continued lack of success seems to imply that, maybe, these theories and models are just wrong. Yet, no one involved in these pursuits, directly or indirectly, seems too alarmed or discouraged that the searches keep turning up empty. This brings us to a second and more troubling aspect of the crisis referred to earlier in this chapter. After years of not finding these nuclear components, particles and forces supposedly fundamental to the existence of all matter, no one has seriously questioned the validity of the theories that claim the particles and forces exist. It seems no one is willing to stand up and say, Something is not right; let’s take another look at this. Well—something is not right; let’s take another look at this!

As scientists acquire new information about the atom, they attempt to incorporate it into an atomic model that has been evolving for centuries. Sometimes, new findings cause scientists to discard previous model features and replace them with a new concept. For example, alpha scattering in atoms caused scientists to change the atomic model from one with its mass homogenously distributed throughout the atom, to one with most of its mass concentrated in a small nucleus at the center of the atom. Other times, scientists simply tack new attributes onto the existing atomic model, extending its scope. An example of this is the addition of the strong nuclear force emanating from protons and neutrons to hold the nucleus together. The general nuclear model of protons and neutrons did not change; it merely possessed a new feature in the strong force.

In most cases, changes made to the atomic model because of new findings modified the existing model to incorporate the new findings, as in the latter example above. This usually affected only a few attributes of the model at a time, leaving the general model intact. Over time, in order to explain various atomic phenomena, the model has seen several of these modifications appended to it.