Of Particular Significance

Why Do Protons and Neutrons Form Nuclei, and Why Are The Nuclei So Small?

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON 03/04/2013

The Structure of Matter series continues: last week’s article on the basics of atomic nuclei is now supplemented with an article discussing the “residual” strong nuclear force which binds protons and neutrons inside of nuclei.  It further explains why nuclei are so small compared to atoms.  Or rather, it explains it in part, because I have to also explain why protons and neutrons themselves are so small — which I will do soon enough.

As always, readers are encouraged to comment on things that don’t seem clear or correct.  And any nuclear physics experts who want to weigh in on my presentation — suggesting how it might be improved or extended, or identifying misconceptions on my part — are encouraged to speak up (publicly or privately as you prefer).

Meanwhile, we’re entering the March conference season, when many new results from the Large Hadron Collider [LHC] (based on analysis of last year’s data) and from other important experiments will start appearing.  Since the LHC’s proton-proton collisions went til December in 2012 (in 2011 they stopped in October) the time for LHC data analysis has been rather short.  I therefore think it likely that any really surprising results from the LHC will be delayed for extra scrutiny — and may not appear until late spring or summer, when there are other conferences.  But I could be wrong!  And one thing we’re all waiting for is the measurement by CMS (one of the two general purpose LHC experiments) of the rate for the recently discovered Higgs particle to decay to two photons.   However, we won’t see that result until CMS is absolutely confident in it.

Share via:


6 Responses

  1. @Sam Brandon: I fear to find out what yes-science all this verbiage of yours is a derivation of.

  2. It can be substantially and definitely improved: electrons, positrons, quarks and antiquarks are the two-photons-whirls. Mass is the measure of coupling of elementary energy (the photon) and epsilon and mu properties of the space – it is the convolution of elementary EM-energy and epsilon and mu. The photon’s mass is non-inertial (proto-mass). The elementary inertial mass is the mass of the two-photons-whirl. The fundamental pattern of existence is:
    a) energy-space-time, interrelated with the two most basic equations of existence: Planck’s equation, Maxwell’s equation for EM-velocity
    Energy, space-time are essentially EM phenomena, which (can) change continually.
    b) Fmax, c (the essential constraints)
    c) 4 substantial interconnection values: Planck’s constant, gravitation-constant, epsilon, mu
    d) Gaussian and convolution
    e) photon and two-photons-whirl

    Confrontation of photons causes the increase of epsilon and mu properties of space in the area of their confrontation. Non-constant distribution of epsilon and mu causes the photon-path bending (that is why photons bend their path when they enter into prism, when they pass near the edges of solid bodies, when they pass through slits, …, that is why interference patterns emerge when two coherent EM waves confront. That is also why light bends in the gravitational field).

    From just Planck’s quantum equation, and Maxwell’s equation for EM propagation velocity, and from continuity-property of elementary energy and space-time, one can easily derive Newton’s principles, and – including the superposition principle – one can easily derive the Newton’s law of gravitation, and the correct relativity equations (current relativity equations are just approximations of reality, and that can be easily shown, mathematically precisely and irrefutably).

    This is, essentially, the TOE core. In short. In words. There is also the complete mathematical derivation. Logically, mathematically and physically non-uncertain, non-spontaneous and unambiguous. In a word – irrefutable.
    And therefore, very, very undesirable by the physics academic community.

    Current science is as good as Ptolemy’s description – rather precise description of the world, but driven with uncertainty, spontaneity, ambiguity, or, in other words, by God’s will. So, current fundamental physics is just the mathematical mysticism. Mathematical religion. No-science.


Leave a Reply


Buy The Book

A decay of a Higgs boson, as reconstructed by the CMS experiment at the LHC


The particle physics community is mourning the passing of Peter Higgs, the influential theoretical physicist and 2013 Nobel Prize laureate. Higgs actually wrote very few

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON 04/12/2024

I recently pointed out that there are unfamiliar types of standing waves that violate the rules of the standing waves that we most often encounter

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON 03/25/2024