By prof. LEFTERIS KALIAMBOS (Λευτέρης Καλιαμπός )T. E. Institute of Larissa - Greece  

The article was announced to many universities around the world (April 2011). See in Google Scholar: a) Our paper "Impact of Maxwell's...dipolic particles" (1993)  which invalidates Maxwell's fields and Einstein's relativity and b) Our paper "Nuclear structure is governed by the fundamental laws of electromagnetism" presented at the 12th Symposium of the Hellenic nuclear physics society and published in Ind J. Th. Phys. in 2003. In that paper I discovered extra nine charged quarks in proton and twelve one in neutron amomg  288 quarks in nucleons.( See in User Kaliambos the published papers alog with our additional published paper "Spin-spin interactions of electrons and also of nucleons create atomic molecular and nuclear structures" ).


The frontiers of science are broad and varied. As the methods of observation are improved and expanded, an immense variety of facts and occurrences are faced and new phenomena are continually discovered. Science tries to understand the phenomena as the consequences of the basic laws of nature. In this way, insights are gained into the fundamental ordering principles that govern the great variety of observed events under the concepts of force, energy etc. In physics, the definition of force was formulated by Newton and it applies to gravitational and electromagnetic interactions of the well-established natural laws of Newton , Coulomb, Ampere, and Biot-Savart. According to these laws the force is the result of fundamental interactions at a distance. Note that natural laws are valid at both macroscopic and microscopic levels without limitations. For example Newton proved that gravity is a universal force, while Aristotle believed that gravity does not govern the celestial bodies. Like Aristotle’s limitations, theoretical physicists of the 20th century believed that in the case of two-electron orbitals and at the microscopic level of nuclei and quarks the fundamental laws of electromagnetism cannot be applied, although Bohr in 1913 used successfully the Coulomb law. So, Heisenberg (1926 and 1932), Yukawa (1935), Gell-Mann (1973) and other physicists developed theories out of natural laws to describe qualitatively the two-electron orbitals the nuclear bonds, and the quark bindings with hypothetical exchange strong forces as well as weak forces of the beta decay. Under this apparent situation of three different kinds of the same force obeying the same laws, physicists with various unified field theories sought to unify these hypothetical forces into a fundamental law, but without success, because they did not know that all kinds of force including the two-electron orbitals and bindings of nucleons and quarks are just electromagnetic in nature, like the real forces of the well-established laws of electromagnetism, which described successfully the one-electron atomic systems in the Bohr model and in the quantum mechanics.

Experiments showed that nuclei consist of spinning protons and neutrons with charge distributions, which behave like small current loops establishing magnetic moments μ. Consequently from the experimental values of μ and the experiments of the deep inelastic scattering we were able to reveal in particle and modern physics the considerable charge distributions (–5e/3,8e/3) for proton and (8e/3,-8e/3) for neutron. (See in Google New ideas in quantum physics). Therefore nucleons are not simple globs but spinning particles composed of fundamental fractional charges as multiples of +2e/3 and –e/3 conforming the quark hypothesis of Gell-Mann and Zweig (1964).

Historically the classification system of Gell-Mann led to the simple three-quark picture of nucleon structure with uud scheme for proton and udd scheme for neutron, while the experiments of deep inelastic scattering and the experimental values of μ lead to an uncharged total mass of an indefinite number of (d-u-d) schemes with zero
charge in nucleons giving very strong quark bonds, where charge distributions with (5d,4u) as extra charged quarks for proton and (4u,8d) as extra charged quarks for neutron, exist at centers and along the peripheries respectively, like the extra neutrons in heavy nuclei distributed around a core with Z=N of strong p-n bonds. WE PRESENTED AT THE 12th SYMPOSIUM OF THE HELLENIC NUCLEAR PHYSICS SOCIETY  (N.C.S.R. "Demokritos",  2002)  A LARGE NUMBER OF INTEGRAL EQUATIONS BASED ON ELECTROMAGNETIC LAWS WHICH REVEALED THE NUCLEAR STRUCTURE.


Since natural laws are valid everywhere without limitations, we applied the electromagnetic laws on such distributions of charges, which lead exactly to the binding and structure of nuclei with strong electromagnetic forces of short range, invalidating Einstein’s rest energy and the hypothetical strong interaction of the qualitative exchange forces of Yukawa’s mesons (1935), and the virtual mediators, the gluons, of the theory of Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) developed in 1973. As a matter of historical fact this rebirth of natural laws made its successful debut as a result of the abandonment of hypothetical force mediators in favor of quantitative measurements performed in carefully controlled experimentation.

In the hydrogen atom with a nucleus of deuteron the distance between the deuteron of charge distributions and the spinning electron is much more greater than the size of deuteron. Thus, at such a great distance the extra charged quarks of proton and neutron with the considerable charge distributions (-5e/3,8e/3) and (8e/3,-8e/3) which at a short distance give short-ranged electromagnetic forces, now at the atomic largest scale become a point charge (+e) of proton and zero charge for neutron giving only a long-ranged electric force between (+e) of nucleus and (-e) of electron, since the electromagnetic forces of short range disappear. Of course for this dramatic changing of forces the hypothetical mediators like the fallacious Maxwellian fields or the virtual photons of Quantum Electrodynamics cannot be responsible. In these cases the changing of geometry is responsible, since the charge distributions which cover a space with dimensions much less than its distance away from a point of interest, become a point charge (+e) for proton, while the distributed equal unlike charges of neutron give zero charge. In the Bohr model the electron of a point charge (-e) revolves about the nucleus with a point charge (+e) at such speed that the long-ranged electric force of the Coulomb interaction just equals the requisite centripetal force to maintain this orbital motion. That is, starting from the microscopic geometry of fermis and going to the atomic geometry of nanometers we observe different kinds of force acting at a distance under the same natural laws, which do not need any hypothetical force carrier for the changing. Also the Schroedinger equation of the quantum mechanics (1926) was based on the same Coulomb law of force and on the law of the absorption of photons. Therefore it provided enormous success in explaining the principal features of the one-electron atomic systems, since Schroedinger in his postulations used the natural law of force in the Coulomb interaction.

However Maxwell (1865) in his electromagnetic theory did not apply the fundamental laws of Coulomb and Biot-Savart but used wrong assumptions for formulating the fallacious self propagating fields with excellent mathematical formulation, because he believed that light consists of strange electromagnetic fields able to travel through a medium (ether) without charges. This theoretical error led physicists of the 20th century to believe that particles interact with one another via the fallacious electric and magnetic fields of Maxwellian waves. (See in Google INVALIDITY OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY ). Under this condition  we presented at the international conference "Frontiers of fundamental physics" (Olympia, 1993) our dipolic photons by applying the basic laws of Coulomb and Biot-Savart.

Olympia 1993 Why the dipolic photons replace Einstein's massless quanta of fields

Since a dipolic photon has a mass of opposite charges, we used again the fundamental laws of electromagnetism, which lead to the law of the absorption of photons for formulating the basic formula of the photon-matter interaction hν/m = ΔΕ/ΔΜ = c2 . This is also the result of the relation M = γMo, according to which the velocity υ of a particle with a rest mass Mo in the photon-particle system, under non conservative forces, cannot move as fast as the speed c of light, because the dipolic photon gives always its mass m to the rest mass Mo of the particle.

Of course in conservative systems, where the potential energy becomes a kinetic one (without absorptions of photons) the mass remains always constant at any velocity. That is, we revived Newton’s ideas that in conservative systems the mass of a body remains unaltered irrespective of its state of motion under a Newtonian absolute space and time. Also the peripheral velocity of spinning particles cannot be related with Einstein’s relativity , who in 1905 using not the laws of nature but Maxwell’s wrong postulations of the fallacious self propagating fields, introduced the wrong ideas of the increase of mass, (without absorptions of photons) due to the relative velocities of two observers. So Einstein violated the two well separated fundamental laws of conservation of mass and conservation of energy, and introduced the fallacious idea of the rest mass energy. Moreover he believed that in nature cannot exist any velocity greater than the speed of light, because he did not know that this limitation occurs only in the systems of non conservative forces. (See in Google EINSTEIN’S WRONG ASSUMPTIONS IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY).

Under such wrong concepts one could understand that nuclear binding should not be related with the idea that mass is converted into energy. On the other hand, since in the simplest hydrogen atom of the Bohr model and the Schroedinger quantum mechanics the laws of electromagnetism solved all the phenomena about the one –electron atoms, we revived the natural laws by applying the basic laws of Coulomb and Biot-Savart for formulating a large number of equations (2003), which give net attractive electromagnetic forces of short range between a proton and a neutron . Note that our paper met much skepticism and a great resistance, though the equations led successfully to the nuclear binding and structure with proton-neutron bonds of two kinds, which explain all experimental nuclear properties, like the strong force of short range, the binding energy and the spin of deuteron and other nuclei, the saturation property, the magic numbers, the stability of alpha particle nuclei, the decay of radioactive nuclei, etc. Also using the same applications of these laws (2008) on two-electron orbitals we showed that two spinning electrons interact with opposite spin and exert attractive magnetic forces of short range, which become stronger than the long-ranged electric repulsions at short interelectron separations for making the two-electron coupling in many-electron atoms and molecules, because they have a spin with an enormous peripheral velocity υ>>c, which is forbidden under Einstein’s wrong ideas.

It is of interest to note that Maxwell and Einstein have been the subject of more debate in scientific and historical circles than any physicist or “scientist” who ever lived . They have been variously considered as being the “armchair scientists”, who could easily have tested their assumptions, but considered them unnecessary to challenge the power of the logical mind as being profound thinkers, who made valuable improvements in all the subjects of light and matter under excellent mathematical formulations. It is indeed unfortunate that physicists around the world in becoming aware of the existence of a body of scientific knowledge, that was vastly superior to their own, chose to emphasize and build upon of Maxwell’s and Einstein’s theoretical errors. This misplaced emphasis, began to assume the status of doctrines. So they did much to retard not only the progress of nuclear physics but also the progress of atomic and molecular physics. For example the tangential linear velocity υ along the periphery of a spinning electron, which is much greater than the speed of light c, is responsible for the two-electron coupling in atoms and molecules, because at υ>c the magnetic force of the well-established laws of electromagnetism becomes stronger than the electric repulsion of long range. In other words the peripheral velocity of the electron spin which is greater than the speed of light gives the structure of atoms and molecules responsible for our life on earth. However Einstein’s wrong idea that in nature cannot exist any velocity greater than the speed of light, did much to retard the progress of atomic and molecular physics and led to qualitative approaches for the study of atoms and molecules like Heisenberg’s theory (1926) of the so-called exchange interaction.

Moreover Maxwell’s fallacious fields and Einstein’s wrong idea that mass is a concentrated form of energy, led to several invalid theories and models about the nuclear binding the nuclear force and the structure of nucleons. For example the fundamental characteristic of the force as an interaction at a distance between two charges of the basic laws of electromagnetism became a force on a given charge as caused by a mediator field at that point. Then in nuclear physics the field mediator became a particle mediator. In Heisenberg’s theory of the exchange force (1932) it is the electron. After Heisenberg’s failure, Yukawa in his theory of meson (1935) using the fallacious concept of rest energy concluded that the mediator is a meson particle. Then the meson theory was replaced by the Quantum Chromodynamics using a massless virtual gluon as an exchange force between fallacious color charges. Note that the gluon was based also on Einstein’s wrong concept of rest mass energy and on the Quantum Electrodynamics which used for electromagnetic interactions virtual photons like the fallacious fields of Maxwell.

Historically, despite the enormous technology in atomic energy, theoretical physicists of the 20th century under the fallacious ideas of Maxwell fields and Einstein’s idea that in nature cannot exist any velocity greater than the speed of light, repeating the same methods of Maxwell and Einstein tried to interpret the two-electron coupling of many-electron atoms and molecules by using wrong assumptions. Moreover under the general conviction that natural laws cannot be applied to the coupling of electrons and to nuclear binding, physicists interpreted the nuclear forces by using fallacious theories and models without applying natural laws. Also in particle physics they developed a large number of different theories and models like the string theory, the standard model, the theory of everything etc. So they were for the most part deductive thinkers. They tended to lay down assumptions from which they logically deduced a set of conclusions under excellent mathematical formulations but without using natural laws. Such cases we see also in the nuclear structure models like the liquid drop, the Fermi gas, the nuclear shell, and the collective model, which lead to complications, because they were based on wrong postulations. On the other hand the fallacious force mediators like the electron of Heisenberg, the pion of Yukawa, and the gluon with color forces of Gell-Mann, did not succeed in reproducing quantitatively the known nuclear phenomena, while the application of electromagnetic laws on the charge distributions in nucleons described successfully the nuclear binding and the structure of nuclei.


THE SUCCESSFUL THEORIES OF BOHR AND SCHROEDINGER INVALIDATE MAXWELL'S AND EINSTEIN'S IDEAS :To begin with the ideas for the formation of the hydrogen atom Thomson and Rutherford under the wrong electromagnetic theory of Maxwell believed that the motion of electron around the nucleus is unstable, because Maxwell predicted that it would radiate. In fact, the motion in orbits cannot give any work ( ΔΕ = hν ) since the force is always perpendicular to the circular motion. Under those wrong ideas the planetary model seemed to pose an insoluble dilemma, but Rutherford chose to ignore it. In 1911 Bohr arrived in Cambridge eager to discuss his work with Thomson, who discovered the electron. However Thomson did not share the enthusiasm with, which Bohr expounded his different ideas from Maxwell's theory. On the other hand Einstein's wrong assumptions in special relativity lead to the increase of the rest mass Mo of electron when it moves at the velocity υ/c = 0.007 around the nucleus. In fact, during the formation of hydrogen atom the potential energy K(+e)(-e)/r becomes a total kinetic energy KE of the electron with a velocity u/c = 0.01 . During this transformation we discovered that the rest mass Mo remains constant under Newton's the absolute space and time. Then according to quantum theory during the deceleration from u/c to υ/c the energy ΔΕ of electron becomes hν of photon. Also according to our formula ΔΕ/ΔΜ = hν/m the mass ΔΜ of electron is transformed into the mass m of photon. Note that Bohr did not know such a transformation of mass. So he used only the energy transformation under a quantum jump. Moreover Schroedinger using the same law of Coulomb developed the quantum mechanics for explaining all features of the hydrogen spectrum.

THE SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM OF THE TWO-ELECTRON COUPLING : Despite the enormous success of the application of the Coulomb law in the Bohr model and in the quantum mechanics of Schroedinger in explaining the principal features of the hydrogen spectrum and of other one-electron atomic systems, neither was able to provide a satisfactory explanation of the two-electron coupling and the ground state energy of the two-electron simplest atomic systems, like H -, He, Li+, Be++ etc. In1926 Heisenberg for interpreting the ground state energy of the helium atom, under the general ideas that the electron spin cannot provide any peripheral velocity greater than the speed of light, did not apply the well-established laws of electromagnetism for revealing the attractive electromagnetic forces between the spinning electrons, which lead to a vibration energy. So he introduced qualitative approaches of the so-called exchange interaction by using complicated wave functions, which did not give the experimental value of the ground state energy E = –79 eV.

Under this condition revealing the wrong ideas in relativity we applied the fundamental laws of Coulomb and Biot-Savart on two spinning electrons, which interact with opposite spin to give attractive electromagnetic force at short separations, because their spin is associated with an enormous peripheral velocity υ greater than the speed c of light (υ >> c). For simplicity using the laws of Coulomb and Biot-Savart for two like charges q and q moving along parallel lines at a distance r with a common velocity υ one observes that when υ>c the magnetic attraction Fm along the distance r becomes stronger than the electric repulsion Fe. In this case the fundamental Coulomb law gives Fe = Kq2/r2while, after the experiments of Weber (1864) the laws of magnetism give the magnetic force as Fm = Kq2υ2/c2r2. That is, for υ>c , Fm>Fe. So we were able to see that the quantum mechanics and the particle physics become complete, when we analyze carefully the invalid ideas of Einstein. ( See in Google INVALIDITY OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY). Then we used not only the Coulomb force of repulsion but also the stronger magnetic attractive force in order to interpret the ground state energies of two-electron orbitals with opposite spin. In 1925 Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit, on the basis of various experimental data , made a bold suggestion that the electron rotates like a spinning disk and that its z component can have only two opposite values of S = ħ/2 where ħ = h/2π is the spin of photon. However under the fallacious ideas in relativity it was puzzling to note that if the electron is considered as a small spinning disk of a small radius,( r < 0.1 fm) , it may then be shown that the tangential linear velocity υ will be much greater than the speed of light c. For an electron spinning like a rotating disk, writing S = ħ /2 = (m/2)υr one gets υ > 1 billion Km/sec.

Of course under Einstein’s fallacious ideas that in nature cannot exist any velocity greater than the speed of light, the suggestion proposed by Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit met opposition at the very beginning from many physicists, including Pauli who was already famous with his qualitative relations of the so-called “exclusion principle”. It is well-known that Pauli had proposed at the beginning of 1925 that in addition to three known quantum numbers (n,l,m) of quantum mechanics a fourth was needed to give the electron a complete description. Although Sroedinger in his quantum mechanics did not use Einstein's relativity, Pauli said “ I strongly doubted the correctness of this idea (spin) because of its classical mechanical character”. Of course under this condition Pauli and other theoretical physicists could not be able to study the coupling of two spinning electrons. The pressure was so great that Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit wanted to withdraw the paper they had submitted. However it was too late to do so, because their adviser Ehrenfest had already sent the paper for publication. He said: "You are both young enough to allow yourselves some foolishness". Subsequent developments proved that the concept of electron spin is indeed one of the most important concepts in microscopic physics. Using the simple experimental relation μ/S = -e/m we discovered that its charge –e is along the periphery. For example a charge q moving with a velocity υ along the periphery of a spinning disk of radius r and mass M, produces a wel-known current i as i = qν = qυ/2πr . Since μ = iπr2 we are able to write μ = (qυ/2πr)πr2= (q/2)υr. While its spin S must be given by S = (M/2) υr. Since q = -e and M = m, one gets μ/S = -e/m. Using this fundamental nature of electrons we applied the basic electromagnetic laws for two spinning electrons of opposite spin at an interelectron separation r for formulating the following equation which gives the law of attractive electromagnetic force Fem with opposite spin as Fem = Fe – Fm = Ke2/r2 – α2Ke2/r4. Here the last term may become Fm = Fe(α2/r2).That is, we see that Fm/Fe = α2/r2where α = 3ћ/2mc = 578.8 fm Of course for Fe = Fm one gets r = α = 578.8 fm. That is, for r < 578.8 fm we observe an attractive magnetic force Fm stronger than the repulsive electric force Fe. Hence an attractive electromagnetic force Fem leads to the coupling of two electrons with opposite spin giving a vibration energy under the Faraday induction law as: Ev = 16.95 Z – 4.1 eV where Z is the number of protons of the two-electron atomic systems. In general the ground state energy E of the two-electron simplest atomic systems like H-, He, Li+, Be++ etc. is given by the simple equation E = -27.2 Z2+16.95Z - 4.1 For example in the simplest hydrogen ion H- with a two-electron orbital since Z = 1 one gets E = -14.35 eV which is 0.75eV stronger than the -13.6 eV of the one-electron orbital of the neutral hydrogen atom. Note that this difference of 0.75 eV was called electron affinity, which is responsible for the ionic bonds. Moreover for the simple helium atom since Z =2 we may get E = -79 eV. That is, according to the Bohr model it has a binding energy -27.2 Z2 = -108.8 eV in which we add the vibration energy Ev = 16.95 Z – 4.1 = 29.8 eV to get the experimental value of –79 eV. (See in Google Spin-spin interactions of electrons…by Kaliambos).


The ground-state wave function of the two-electron system in the simplest hydrogen molecule is in many respects, similar to that of the two electron orbital of the simplest atomic systems. However here we observe not a spherical symmetry but a cylindrical one because of the proton-proton repulsion. The total wave function can again be constructed from a linear combination of atomic wave function so as to meet the requirement of bonding states because in the p-p electric repulsion there is an attractive magnetic force when the spin of the proton-proton system is opposite. However in identical nucleons we observe a peripheral velocity υ < c because of the great mass M of proton. Here we write Fem = +Fe – Fm where the electric repulsion is stronger than the magnetic attraction.

Therefore in the Schroedinger’s quantum mechanics we must add not only the repulsive energy between the two protons of opposite spin (bonding state) but also the vibration energy Ev of the two-electron coupling, which was unknown in the 20th century. As in the cases of He and H- the two electrons of opposite spin behave like one particle, which attracts both protons as in the case of the one electron in the hydrogen molecule ion. Note that the basic mechanism of the molecular binding in the simplest hydrogen molecule of H2 is the Hamiltonian which cannot include the kinetic energy of the two protons, because they are much more massive than the electron. In other words when calculating electronic wave functions and energy levels we can disregard the dynamics of protons. If the protons are well separated , the two-electron system will be bound to one or the other proton having a ground state energy of -14.35 eV of the hydrogen ion ( H-) with Z = 1. However as the proton-proton separation is reduced , the wave function is altered since the two-electron system now feels the electric potential of both protons with a charge ζe where 1<ζ<2. In helium atom where the separation is zero (Ζ=2) we have E = -79 eV. That is, the two-electron orbital at a separation of p-p system has a total binding energy between the binding energy of H- and the binding energy of He, which is expressed by the following equation:

E = - 27.2 ζ2 + 16.95 ζ - 4.1 + Ke2/r

where 1 < ζ <2 and r is the separation of the p-p system.

Note that detailed calculations for the molecule of H2 yield a separation of the p-p system r = 0.074 nm with a repulsive energy Epp = 19.46 eV (the magnetic force Fm is negligible). Since E = -31.68 eV we get ζ = 1.663. Summarizing, one concludes that in covalent bonds the attractive Fem of the opposite spin of two electrons leads to the two-electron coupling with a vibration energy under the opposite spin of the p-p system which favors the binding but gives always a repulsive electromagnetic force Fem in the p-p system, since Fm is negligible.

On the other hand analyzing the prototype ionic molecule of sodium chloride NaCl, we see that Na is singly ionized (Na+) and Cl is a negative ion (Cl -). The molecule as a whole is electrically neutral but has a large permanent dipole moment. It is well-known that the ionization energy of Na is quite small, 5.14 eV. Note that the neutral Cl lacks just one electron to meet the highly stable noble- gas electron configuration. In fact, that structure is so stable that the energy of the Cl- ion is actually stronger than that of the neutral Cl by 3.62 eV as in the case of H- which has stronger binding energy than H. That is, Chlorine is said to have a so-called electron affinity of 3.62 eV to the spin –spin interaction of two electrons in Cl -. The transfer of the sodium valence electron to the chlorine atom requires only (5.14 - 3.62) eV = 1.52 eV of energy. A net energy reduction, the requisite for molecular stability, derives from electrostatic interaction between these opposite charge ions. Note that physicists of the 20th century did not know the equations which lead to the mechanism of the electron affinity connected with stronger binding when the neutral Cl becomes a negative Cl- .


After Einstein’s idea that mass is a concentrated form of energy, all theoretical physicists of the 20th century believed that the source of nuclear binding is the mass defect, under the hypothesis that the mass is converted into the energy, which is released when nucleons join to form a stable nucleus. Therefore nuclear physicists using the wrong concept of rest mass energy and the fallacious idea of conservation of mass-energy, concluded that the nuclear binding energy is the difference between the rest mass energy of the stable nucleus and the rest mass energy of the isolated constituents. Note that mass defect can be observed also in the simplest hydrogen atom, where it is well-known that the binding energy is due to the attractive force of the Coulomb law. Under this condition it was necessary to analyze carefully the incorrectness of Einstein’s relativity in order to revive the electromagnetic laws, which were used successfully by Bohr and Schroedinger for the study of the hydrogen atom and other one-electron atomic systems.

It is of interest to note that for the study of nuclear structure we discovered the charge distributions of spinning protons (p) and spinning neutrons (n) by using the experiments about the magnetic moments and the results of the deep inelastic scattering. Then we applied the basic electromagnetic laws which lead to the nuclear structure and binding energies of the simplest deuteron and of other nuclei. Using the magnetic moment of the spinning proton ( g = 2.793 ) we showed that proton is an oblate spheroid with negative charge -q = -5e/3 at its center and positive charge Q = 8e/3 along the periphery. Moreover according to the magnetic moment of neutron (g = -1.913 ) the spinning neutron has a positive charge Q = 8e/3 at its center and a negative charge -Q = -8e/3 along the periphery. Then applications of electromagnetic laws on such distributions of charges give a strong p-n bond of a total attractive electromagnetic force Fem = - Fe - Fm of short range like the electromagnetic force of dipole-dipole interactions in molecules. That is, both electric and magnetic interactions give attractive forces because the parallel spin of a simple p-n system gives always electric and magnetic attractions. Moreover the simplest p-n system cannot obey the Pauli principle, since it operates with parallel spin along the radial direction giving a strong binding energy E = -2.2246 MeV.

Despite the hypothesis of nuclear physicists of the 20th century that p-p and n-n systems give bonds, we discovered that p-p and n-n system cannot give any bond like the simple p-p and n-n systems, which cannot be observed in nature as simple particles with two protons or two neutrons. In these very simple cases we see that Fem = +Fe – Fm where the repulsive Fe is always stronger than the attractive Fm because the peripheral velocities of the spinning nucleons are smaller than the speed of light. For example one of the nucleons, the proton, of radius (r = 0.84 fm) is a spinning oblate spheroid with t = 0.47742 (between a sphere of t = 0.4 and a disk of t = 0.5 ). Thus writing the spin S = tMυr = ћ/2, of a spinning oblate spheroid, substitutions of constants yield υ = 0.79 Km /sec. For the structure of helium and other nuclei we calculated very strong p-n bonds of short range along the spin axis because the distance between two oblate spheroids like the proton and the neutron along the spin axis is less than the distance of their diameter. That is, there are two kinds of nuclear electromagnetic forces which imply anisotropy leading often to elongated shapes. On the other hand, since the spin of nucleons gives always peripheral velocity υ<c , in many cases in which the repulsions of the p-p and n-n systems overcome the p-n bonds (unstable nuclei) lead to the decay.

NUCLEAR STRUCTURE. (The p-n bonds overcome the p-p and n-n repulsions)Edit

In stable nuclei the proton- neutron bonds under a proper structure form rectangles and closely packed parallelepipeds which overcome the repulsions of protons of long range and the n-n repulsions of short range. For example in carbon and oxygen with Z=N the structure has a shape of a parallelepiped where we observe four p- n bonds per nucleon. However the first parallelepiped of 8Be is unstable though it consists of two stable 4He because in this parallelepiped we see only three p-n bonds per nucleon. (See in the diagram). As the nuclei become heavier suitable geometric shapes (cores) are surrounded by extra neutrons for making extra p-n bonds able to overcome the long-ranged of p-p repulsions (Stable nuclei of N>Z). However in a non symmetric nuclear structure or in very heavy nuclei the long- ranged repulsions of protons overcome the short-ranged electromagnetic attractions of p-n bonds. (See in Google my paper Nuclear structure is governed by the fundamental laws of electromagnetism).

So nuclear structure is due to the p-n bonds of the nuclear electromagnetic forces when they exceed the p-p and n-n repulsions, since a close packing of nucleons brings the p-n bonds closer together. Since the physicists of the 20th century did not know such real forces, their most important structure models like the Liquid drop, the Fermi Gas, the Nuclear Shell, and the Collective model, could not lead to the nuclear structure. Most of them were based on the Pauli principle, though the simplest nuclear structure of deuteron cannot obey that principle. All these difficulties were resolved with the discovery of the charge distributions. Applications of electromagnetic laws along the radial and axial directions of the spin of nucleons lead to the p-n bonds, which exceed the weak p-p and n-n repulsions along the diagonals and form symmetrical shapes with no more than 6 bonds per nucleon. In heavy nuclei a type of shell structure forms blank positions for receiving the extra neutrons, which make extra bonds with two or three protons since the great number of p-p repulsions of long- ranged forces at great distances tend to overcome the short-ranged p-n bonds. Here you see some typical diagrams of 4He, 8Be, 16O and 208Pb where the extra neutrons are represented by small circles.



Historically by 1932 (when Chadwick discovered the neutron) the nuclear model that fitted the available data was that of a very small spherical object consisting of proton and electron. After the discovery of neutron under the limited knowledge about the neutron, physicists believed that neutron has no charge. Also the experiments which showed the enormous strength and very short range of the force between the nucleons led to the abandonment of natural electromagnetic laws. Therefore physicists believed that something strong force exists in three equal bonds of the simple p-n, p-p and n-n systems which could not be based on the well-established electromagnetic laws. Of course such bonds had to be described under unknown natural laws. Under this condition, since nuclear masses and mass defects had been measured, physicists used Einstein's fallacious ideas that mass is a concentrated form of energy in order to explain the binding energies of nuclei.

In 1932 Heisenberg made one of the first attempts to interpret such a strong force by introducing the false idea of the exchange force produced by an electron like the exchange interaction of his idea introduced in 1926 for the explanation of the covalent bond in the simplest hydrogen molecule ion. Moreover after the failure of Heisenberg's theory Yukawa in 1935 following Heisenberg's ideas of exchange forces proposed another theory where the mediating field particle was to be called a meson. However many attempts to fit the meson theory into a consistent scheme of nuclear forces did not succeed in reproducing quantitatively the known nuclear phenomena. Under this condition a new theory of quantum chromodynamics was introduced for interpreting the nuclear and quark binding through gluons. Of course the same problems one observes also in this theory which cannot lead to the nuclear structure. After the abandonment of charge-charge interactions Gell-Mann who proposed the simple quark model with quarks of fractional electric charges (1964) later introduced the hypothesis that strong nuclear forces need not the charge-charge interaction of natural laws but other hypothetical charges which he called colour charges giving hypothetical strong colour forces(1973). Note that these ideas of mediator particles of forces like the electron of Heisenberg the pion of Yukawa and the gluon of Gell-Mann have the origin in the fallacious fields of Maxwell.


It is remarkable that all simple phenomena of the electric force Fe involving two charges Q and q of two bodies at a distance r can be described very well by the Coulomb law Fe = KQq/r2, when the distance r is much greater than the size of bodies. Whereas at a very small distance when r is comparable to the size of bodies, and when Q and q are the results of opposite charge distributions one can calculate a large number of electrical forces between the charge distributions which provide a short- ranged force after the calculations of long- ranged forces. In this law of force the quantities Q and q called charges may exist on matter. So the presence of charge on two bodies is made evident by forces of at a distance interaction between the two bodies containing charge. According to this fundamental law, the force Fe on q is considered as being caused by the presence at the distance r of the charge Q. (action at a distance). In the field formulation of the problem after the fallacious ideas of Maxwell’s self propagating fields the charge Q is thought of as producing an electric field E at q, which accounts for the force on q. Then in the quantum field theory under the same errors of Maxwell the photons as mediators of forces were considered to be field quanta while in our model of dipolic particles photons have a mass of opposite charges. At the beginning of this subject in order to solve various problems of electrostatics the “field” E was defined as the electric force Fe (action at a distance) on a unit charge. Under this definition we can write Fe = (KQ/r2)q . Of course the quantity in parenthesis is the field E which is just the force Fe (action at a distance) when q =1. That is, the field is again the force at a distance since we observe experimentally the same interaction between Q and q when q =1. Note that in the model of dipolic particles the charges of a photon operate at the speed of light with electromagnetic forces acting at a distance. So in the new quantum field theory one can use the fields as forces acting at a distance.

Also the detailed study of magnetism began with no mention of a magnetic field. Ampere in the law of magnetic force Fm (1820) concluded that the attractions and repulsions (actions at a distance) which occur between two parallel currents according as they are directed in the same sense or in opposite senses, are facts given by an experiment which is easy to repeat. According to the law of magnetism, when two particles with positive charges Q and q move at the velocities u and v respectively in space, we describe in general the magnetic force Fm as

Fm = (μοQu sinφ/4πr2)qvsinθ

where φ is the angle between u and r and θ is the angle between v and the perpendicular line at q to the plane formed by u and r. According to the definition of the magnetic field the field B at q is just the magnetic force Fm (action at a distance) when the quantity qvsinθ = 1. So in this equation the quantity in parenthesis represents the magnetic field formulated in the law of Biot-Savart . In other words both E and B are again the electric and magnetic forces, which interact at a distance r, while in modern particle physics after the fallacious ideas of Maxwell the magnetic field B is a property of space able to travel at c without charges. This fundamental equation in the simplest situation of two particles with like charges moving at a common velocity υ gives an attractive magnetic force Fm stronger than the electric repulsion Fe when υ>c. This important situation is used between two spinning particles when the peripheral velocity υ is much more greater than the speed of light (υ>>c). It is of interest to note that this situation was forbidden by the ideas of Einstein. So it was necessary to invalidate such ideas in order to formulate the law of the magnetic attraction between spinning particles for understanding the structure of hadrons and the two-electron coupling under the electromagnetic interaction at a short distance between spinning quarks and between electrons.


After Maxwell's wrong propagating fields physicists believed that if one makes some sudden change in the charge Q the field E does not change instantaneously through-out space, because the information at q is transmitted at the speed of light c. So it was believed that the force F = Eq that acts on q is not instantaneous. Also after the theories of exchange force of Heisenberg and Yukawa physicists introduced a new theory the QED. According to this theory another way of interpreting the Coulomb force is to introduce an exchange force with photons as particle mediators of the electromagnetic interaction. Even in the case of stationary charges it was assumed that they constantly emit and absorb virtual photons in the sense that they are not directly observable, because it was believed that the photon is strictly massless, which allows for interaction at long distances. According to the wrong ideas of relativity if the photon is not a strictly massless particle, it would not move at the exact speed of light. Of course such problems were solved in our model of dipolic particles, according to which photons always have a mass of two opposite charges. So we revived successfully the laws of force acting at a distance after revealing the fallacious fields of Maxwell and the false rest energy of Einstein.


Once the Ptolemaic idea that the earth is the fixed center of the universe is abandoned the question arises whether there is anything fixed. From his laws of motion Newton (1687) deduced that it has none. His laws conform to what is now called the principle of relativity. For example if I am in a boat (reference frame S’) moving uniformly with respect to a lake (reference frame S) I have no sensation of motion and, therefore, believe that I am “at rest”, when I am stationary in the moving boat. Under this condition the ideas of Newton involve also the assumption that natural laws are the same in all reference frames. So the rest mass is the mass of a body which is stationary in a moving reference frame. For the study of the system photon – matter in a reference frame of course both rest mass Mo and the light source are stationary in the same reference frame where the velocity υ of Mo is zero. That is, υ/c = 0. Note that for the formation of atom, photons are generated and the light source is created into the stationary atoms in a moving laboratory (reference system). However Einstein’s wrong postulation (1905) that the speed of light as measured in any reference frame, is c regardless of the light source relative to that reference frame leads to complications because we cannot determine the zero velocity υ/c = 0 of a rest mass Mo with respect to the speed of light c. (See in Google EINSTEIN’S WRONG ASSUMPTIONS IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY). On the other hand Einstein for interpreting his famous equation ΔΕ/ΔΜ = c2used only the relation M = γ Μο of the Lorentz transformation because he did not know that the energy ΔΕ and the mass ΔΜ of the moving particle are just the energy hν and the mass m of the photon in the photon-matter interaction. So he believed that the entire rest mass of a body may be converted to energy. Under this condition physicists believed that whenever an electron and a positron with masses 2Mo interact they annihilate because two photons appear and have an energy 2hν = 2Moc2. Such a fallacious idea can be explained if one uses our complete formula of matter-photon transformation ΔΕ/2Μο = 2hν/2m= c2 In this formula ΔΕ is the potential energy of the two charged particles which becomes a kinetic one. Thus the energy is not the result of mass but the result of the electric interaction. Then under the quantum mechanics the deceleration produces the energy 2hν of two photons. Also the mass 2Mo of the two particles is converted to the mass 2m of photons. Therefore the common event pair annihilation must be replaced by the fundamental principle matter-photon transformation because the electron and the positron do not annihilate to give the energy 2hν. Their mass 2Mo just is converted to the mass 2m of photons.


When Gell-Mann used a classification system to introduce the quark model he proposed the (uud) scheme for proton and the (udd) scheme for neutron with fractional charges 2e/3 for the up quark and –e/3 for the down quark. However the experiments of the deep inelastic scattering and the experimental values of the magnetic moments lead to a different structure . According to the experimental values of charge distributions (-5e/3,8e/3) for proton and (8e/3,-8e/3) for neutron one observes that extra charged quarks of 5d exist at the center and extra charged quarks of 4u are distributed along the periphery of proton. Also a new scheme of extra charged quarks (4u,8d) are distributed in neutron. In both nucleons such extra charged quarks cover a small area of an uncharged matter, We discovered 288 spinning quarks in each nucleon with 92 (dud) uncharged groups of neutron and 93 groups of proton. Moreover the extra quarks as giving charge distributions opened the horizons for understanding the nuclear binding and the structure of nuclei. However Gell-Mann in 1973 under the general idea that the fundamental laws of electromagnetism cannot be applied to the charges 2e/3 or –e/3 of spinnig quarks followed the theory of exchange forces by using the same method of QED. So he proposed the theory of Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) by introducing as a force mediator, a massless gluon, which has never been observed, because in nature cannot exist massless particles. Furthermore though Gell-Mann found that the quarks have electrical charges he proposed a hypothetical colour charge giving a colour force responsible not only for the binding of quarks (for the structure of hadrons) but also of nucleons for the nuclear structure, invalidating Yukawa’s meson theory. It was also believed that while gluons are massless they possess energy which contributes greatly to the overall uncharged mass of a nucleon. Of course such a situation cannot occur because the energy cannot be transformed into mass.

On the other hand nuclear physicists in order to reconcile the meson theory of Yukawa with the QCD developed a model according to which the nucleon appears to be made up of two regions: a central part of freely moving quarks, and the outer region of the meson cloud where pions and other heavy mesons can exist. Later it was introduced the hypothesis that the three quarks uud for proton and udd for neutron are valence quarks in a sea of virtual quark-antiquark pairs formed when a gluon splits. Also according to the QCD under sufficiently extreme conditions a quark-gluon plasma would be formed, which has never been observed. Note that CERN in vain announced (22 Sep. 2010) that it is possibly the first observation of a quark-gluon plasma in proton collisions in a high -energy experiment. In fact a high temperature can destroy the orientations of spins of quarks which are responsible for the strong binding. Thus, one can observe a plasma of quarks without the fallacious gluons. Under this condition we examined carefully the extra charged quarks with charge distributions which are connected with the uncharged mass of d-u-d schemes. Note that they can exert very strong electromagnetic forces like the spinning electrons, because the distance is much less than the size of a proton or neutron. According to QCD the spinning quarks interact at a very short distance r = 0.001 fm. Thus, using the natural laws the magnetic attraction always overcomes the electric repulsions because the quark spin has a peripheral velocity υ>>c.

WE DISCOVERED 288 SPINNING QUARKS IN NUCLEONS WITH υ>>c LEADING TO VERY STRONG BINDING. According to the simple quark model an up or a down quark has a spin S = ћ/2. Therefore the spinning quarks provide peripheral velocities υ>c, since they are constituents of nucleons with a radius r smaller than the proton radius R = 0.84 fm. After detailed calculations we found that the masses Mu = 4.7m and Md = 7.23m where m is the electron mass. Thus for the down quark with a size r = 0.001 fm we write the spin as S = t(7.23m)υr = ћ/2 where 0.4< t<0.5, since the spinning quarks must be oblate spheroids between a sphere with t = 0.4 and a disk with t = 0.5 . So substitutions of constants yield υ> 10 billion Km/sec. That is, the spinning quarks of a large number (288 quarks) of 92 ( d-u-d) groups for neutron and 93 groups for proton with extra quarks behave like the spinning electrons with their charges 2e/3 or –e/3 moving along the peripheries at velocities greater than the speed of light. On the other hand the extra spinning quarks (5d,4u) for proton and (4u,8d) for neutron are parts giving charge distributions in a total uncharged mass with a large number of (d-u-d) groups with zero charge. Note that this situation is similar to the extra spinning neutrons distributed at outer regions of a core with strong p-n bonds of Z = N. ( See in the diagram of the lead nucleus where the extra neutrons cover the outer region). Examining the interaction of u and d quarks we can write the systems (u-d), (u-u), and (d-d) like the systems p-n, p-p, and n-n of the nuclear structure where the p-n bonds overcome the p-p and n-n repulsions, when the nucleus is stable. In unstable nuclei the p-p and n-n repulsions overcome the p-n bonds. However here we observe a dramatic situation where all systems u-d, u-u and d-d provide bonds. It occurs because the enormous peripheral velocities ( υ>>c) give magnetic attractions always stronger than the electric repulsions. In the case of the (d-u-d) groups we can write the d-u-d bonds like the bonds of triton where there are the simple n-p-n bonds. In this nuclear case the first n-p bond operates in radial direction with Fem = -Fe –Fm. In Triton the parallel spin at a distance 1.68 fm gives the energy of deuteron of -2.2246 MeV. Whereas the second p-n bond operates in axial direction giving a stronger binding energy of -6.2554 MeV. In this case the forces –Fe and –Fm are stronger, because there is an opposite spin at a shorter distance along the spin axis. In both cases the magnetic attraction is less than the electric attraction (Fm/Fe < 1) because the peripheral velocities of nucleons are smaller than the speed of light. However in spinning quarks we have Fm/Fe = α2/r2which gives very strong Fm with respect to Fe because the distance r is very small. Note that for a spinning electron we have α = 3ћ/2mc = 578.8 fm. Since the u and d quarks have Mu = 4.7m and Md = 7.23m respectively we may calculate for the u quark the value α = 123.15 fm and for the d quark α = 80.05 fm. Thus for the d quark we have Fm/Fe = α2/r2 = 6.408 billion . So for all the systems of u-d, u-u, and d-d we observe always very strong bonds because the electric force is negligible with respect to the magnetic force, which is always attractive when the u-d system operates in radial direction with parallel spin like the simple p-n bond of deuteron. Of course when they operate along the spin axis give greater binding. In this very small distance of about r = 0.001 fm of course the electric attraction Fe of the u-d bond is 1 million times stronger than the same u-d bond at the nuclear distance of 1 fm. Moreover since the magnetic attraction is much more greater than the electric force we see that the u-d bond compared with p-n bonds in nuclear structure has an enormous strength which cannot lead to the separation of quarks.

On the other hand the u-u and d-d systems operate in radial direction as well as along the spin axis giving attractive magnetic forces stronger than the electric repulsions, because υ>>c . In these cases since the electric repulsions are negligible with respect to the magnetic attractions we observe the same very strong bonds, which differ fundamentally from the p-p and n-n repulsions. Note that p-p and n-n repulsions lead to unstable nuclei. For example two stable 4He nuclei can form 8Be if they have the correct kinetic energy. But the nucleus of Be is extremely unstable breaking apart again into two 4He nuclei because of the parallel spins of p-p repulsions, which are the result of both repulsive electric and magnetic forces. Whereas in the stable 4He the p-p systems exert weak repulsions of non oriented spins.(See in the diagrams the typical structure of the stable 4He and the unstable 8Be). Note that under the wrong idea that the spin of a quark cannot provide any velocity greater than the speed of light Gell-Mann in order to justify so strong bonds believed that there are hypothetical colour charges mediated by a hypothetical massless gluon although in nature cannot exist energetic particles without a mass.

Surprisingly, experiments show that the forces containing the quarks get weaker as the quarks get closer together. So, physicists proposed a theory according to which the quarks inside a nucleon are rather free to move about. This condition was referred to as “asymptotic freedom”. Part of the nature confinement is that the farther you try to force the quark apart, the greater the force of containment. Of course this situation is due to a very great pressure of very strong attractive magnetic forces, which become weaker when the orientation of spins is affected by the great pressure. Note that this was often visualized in terms of the “bag model” of quark confinement. Under this condition Gell-Mann believed that there is a great crucial difference between the character of the electromagnetic and his hypothetical colour forces. In fact the υ>>c leads to the enormous strength of magnetic attraction, in which a great pressure at shorter distances causes a deviation of orientations of spins responsible for the strong magnetic attractions. Of course along the periphery of a nucleon, where the u-d, u-u, and d-d bonds are less than the bonds in the interior the pressure is smaller. Under this condition an outer region with oriented spins is able to receive extra quarks, which explain the charge distributions along the periphery of proton and neutron. In protons the extra 4u quarks make very strong extra u-d bonds with the schemes of d-u-d. Thus, an impenetrable boundary along the periphery explains the stability of protons. Whereas the extra 8d quarks along the periphery of neutron make weaker extra d-d bonds with the schemes. This situation explains the decay of free neutrons. On the other hand in nucleons the pressure is weaker also just at the center of nucleons like the weak pressure in the center of earth. So another orientation of spins at the center exist for receiving the extra quarks which explain the deep inelastic experiments.

THE DISCOVERY OF 288 SPINNING QUARKS IN NUCLEONS . After our discovery of the extra quarks in nucleons we may wtite: n = N(dud) + (4u,8d) and p = (N+1)(dud) + (5d,4u)

Here N is the number of the uncharged (dud) groups. In protons we write N+1 uncharged groups, because 3d of extra 8d become une extra (dud) group. Here d changes to u during the transformation of n to p in the β decay.That is, for neutron the up quarks give the number N+4 while the down quarks give 2N + 8 . So for neutron the total number of quarks is 3N + 12. On the other hand a proton consists of N + 5 up quarks and 2N +7 down quarks. It means that in each nucleon we may see the same number of quarks (3N +12). Since the masses of Mu and Md of quarks give the mass Mn and Mp of nucleons we may write:

Mn = N(Mu+2Md) + (4Mu + 8Md ). While Mp = (N+1)(Mu +2Md) + (4Mu +5Md)

Since 3d change to one (dud ) we write Mn - Mp = (4Mu + 8Md) - (Mu+2Md) - (4Mu + 5Md) = Md - Mu = δ

Note that δ = 1.291332 MeV because Mn - Mp = 939.563378 - 938.272046 = 1.291332 MeV.

Writing Md = Mu +δ the expression for the mass Mu and the N groups can be written also as

N( Mu + 2Mu + 2δ ) + 4Mu + 8Mu + 8δ = Mn. That is N = (Mn - 12Mu - 8δ) / (3Mu + 2δ )

Or N = (939.563378 - 12Mu - 10.330656) / ( 3Mu + 2.582664). This equation is very inportant because it allows us to calculate both the number N (integer ) and the mass Mu.


Using an estimated approach Mu = 2.4 MeV we see that the above equation gives N = 92.0437 which is not an integer. However by increasing the mass from 2.4 MeV to 2.401484 MeV we get just the integer N = 92. Note that proton consists of 93 such uncharged groups. However since the total number of quarks is equal to 3N +12 we discovered that each nucleon consists of 288 quarks. That is, using the above equation we discoverd not only N and the total number of spinning quars but also the masses of up and down quarks.

Here Mu = 2.401484 MeV and Md = Mu + 1.291332 = 3.692816 MeV which deviates considerably from the esimated approaches of the wrong quark models. Note that the mass of quarks is greater than the mass m of electron.

For examle Mu = 2.401484/0.511 = 4.7m and Md = 3.692816/0.511 = 7.23m. Under this condition one can understand that Eistein's relativity did much to retard also the quark and nucleon physics, because physicists believe that the large area of a nucleon consists of massless gluons with energy. In fact the total mass of the uncharged groups and the extra quarks is just equal to the nucleon mass.


The well-established natural laws of electromagnetism cover all macroscopic and microscopic levels without limitations like the universal gravitational forces. We discovered 288 spinning quarks in eache nucleon, which have an enormous peripheral velocity υ>>c giving strong Fm of short range for the formation of the matter of nucleons with a considerable number of 92 uncharged groups of neutron and 93 groups of proton. Here the uncharged (d-u-d) groups give very strong u-d, u-u, and d-d bonds, providing also extra charged quarks (5d,4u) for proton and (4u,8d) for neutron. At the nuclear distance the extra charged quarks in spinning nucleons interact electromagnetically with short-ranged Fem, which leads only to p-n bonds, since the spin of nucleons gives υ<c. Thus, the p-p and n-n repulsions in many cases (especially in heavy nuclei) lead to the decay and only in symmetrical shapes, where the p-n bonds overcome the p-p and n-n repulsions, one observes a stable nuclear structure. At the atomic level the short-ranged Fem between protons and neutrons disappears, since the great change in geometry leads to the point charge (+Ze) of Z protons, which interacts with the point charge (-e) of electrons giving a long-ranged Fe. However since the spin of electrons gives υ>>c, we observe that two electrons in the same orbital interact with opposite spin for creating the two-electron orbitals in many-electron atoms and molecules.