Physics Essays Vol.12, no.2, 1999




Fundamentals of the Orbital Conception of Elementary Particles
and of their Application to the Neutron and Nuclear Structure

G. Sardin (*)



Abstract Rsum

An alternative approach to the Standard Model is Une alternative au Modle Standard est
outlined, being motivated by the increasing esquisse, motive par les difficults croissantes,
theoretical and experimental difficulties thoriques et exprimentales, que rencontre ce
encountered by this model, which furthermore modle qui par ailleurs n'arrive pas  tre unitaire.
fails to be unitary. In particular, the conceptual En particulier, le dsarroi conceptuel provoqu
uneasiness generated by the excessive multiplicity par l'excessive multiplicit d'lments
of fundamental elements of the Quark Model, 36 fondamentaux du Modle des Quarks, 36
different quarks whose cohesion needs 8 differents quarks dont la cohesion requiert 8
different types of gluons, has logically led some different types de gluons, a de faon logique
physicists to propose a variety of quark conduit certains physiciens  proposer une varit
substructures in an effort to reach unity. de sous-structures des quarks. Cependant ces
However, these hazardous attempts will without essais hasardeux conduiront sans aucun doute la
any doubt guide particle physics to fall into an physique des particules  un prcipice, compte
abyss, in view of the already too highly dubious tenu du dj haut contenu douteux de la QCD.
content of QCD.
Afin d'viter la fuite en avant correspondant 
In order to avoid the forward escape l'attribution d'une sous-structure aux quarks et de
corresponding to the attribution of a substructure se maintenir en marge  l'tranglement conceptuel
to quarks and to stand away from the conceptual auquel le Modle Standard a conduit, nous avons
strangling to which the Standard model has led, opt pour des fondements diffrents. Ceux-ci,
we have instead opted for different fundamentals. contrairement  ceux du Modle Standard, sont
These, in contrast to those of the Standard Model, extrmement simples et se basent sur l'hypothse
are extremely simple and based on the d'un unique corpuscule fondamental, de nature
assumption of a single fundamental corpuscle, of duale existant comme corpuscule et
dual manifestation as corpuscle and anticorpuscle, anticorpuscule et auquel est toujours attribu une
to which is always associated an orbital that orbitale qui dtermine la structure des particules.
determines the structure of particles. In such a Dans ce context les particules se diffrencient
frame particles differentiate through the diversity par la diversit d'tats quantiques de leur orbitale
of quantum states of their structuring orbital, in structurelle, contrastant avec la stratgie qu'utilise
contrast to the strategy used by the Standard le Modle Standard qui se base sur la multiplicit
Model based instead on the particle's multiplicity de composition des particules obtenue grce  la
of composition through the variety of the quark's diversit de leur contenu en quarks diffrents,  la
content, furthermore limited to hadrons. Instead fois limite aux seuls hadrons. De faon
the orbital conception of particles is unitary, aventageuse la conception orbitale des particules
unifying all of them as well as their interactions. est unitaire, s'appliquant  toutes elles et unifiant
As an outstanding feature, nuclear forces derive aussi leurs interactions. Comme consquence
from the neutron orbital structure, based on a remarquable, les forces nuclaires dcoulent de la
proton core and a shell. This shell constitutes the structure orbitale du neutron, base en un noyau
cohesive element of nuclear structure. form par un proton et une enveloppe, laquelle
constitue l'lment cohsif de la structure
nuclaire.




1


Physics Essays Vol.12, no.2, 1999



I. INTRODUCTION I.2. Duality, intrinsic celerity, intrinsic
confinement and spin
I.1. Fundamentals of the orbital conception
of elementary particles and nuclides In order to outline the conceptual frame
developed, some of the primordial characteristics
The basic concepts on which stands an of Nature in its material dimension will be first
alternative and unitary description of objects at commented on. One of them is duality, which
the Fermi scale (10-15 m) are introduced in terms appears as a standard, such as the one from
of conceptual physics (1,2). This includes negative and positive unitary electric charge or
particle and antiparticle, and it will be retained as
elementary particles and their interactions the primordial base of the fundamentals
(3-8,12,19), as well as the building blocks formed developed.
by two of them, the proton and the neutron, which
lead to the large set of stable and unstable Extending hence the precept of duality to the
nuclides (9-16). structure of elementary particles, they will be
considered to derive from a dual fundamental
The fundamentals are self-sustained and system, which can dissociate into its two parts.
converge into a unitary conception of all objects Another basic characteristic stands on self-
at the mentioned scale and of their interactions, celerity, such as with the photon. Still another
named Quantum Orbital Structure (QOS). The relevant one rises from self-confinement, which
concepts developed are not derived from combined to self-celerity generates the
theoretical developments but straightforwardly structuring orbital, spin, magnetic moment,
from the respective experimental data (17,18), interactions, stability, etc.
however they end up concurring with quantum
field theory, more specifically with the I.3. Massive and massless energy
fundamentals of Quantum Electro-Dynamics
(QED). Another fundamental concept stands in the
differentiation between massive energy and
massless energy. In the present frame this
Similarly to QED, within QOS vacuum is differentiation derives directly from the basis of
considered to be populated of virtual quanta, but the fundamental system which applies to all
the QOS goes one step further by attributing elementary particles. The massive or massless
them a specific structure defined by a pair of nature of elementary particles is defined by the
structural corpuscular carriers of opposite unitary residue between two antagonist energy
charges spinning together into a common orbital components of the fundamental system
(c+,c-) defining the structure of these neutral representative of any elementary particle.
virtual quanta. Furthermore, they are considered According to the predominant component the
to be virtual photon-like quanta having similarly an particle has a mass and no intrinsic celerity or is
intrinsic speed. Their ground state is considered massless or near massless and consequently
to be aenergetic, however any energy transfer acquires an intrinsic celerity.
brings them into energetic states represented by
neutral elementary particles, such as the photon, The best-known representative of this latter case
neutrinos, neutral pions, etc. according to the corresponds to the photon, the massless carrier of
quantum state acquired. the electromagnetic field, when in its free state.
In the virtual state, the photon self-celerity
provided by its massless state allows it to act also
Still, these neutral quanta may brake into their as interacting force carrier of the electric and
two structural components, leading to two magnetic fields.
separate charged quanta of opposite sign and
being represented by the diverse charged I.4. Elementary particles: the electron,
particles and antiparticles depending on the proton and neutron
diversity of quantum state of their structure
orbital. The details of the axiomatic base of the All elementary particles are considered to derive
QOS have been edited elsewhere (1). from a single fundamental system and to

2


Physics Essays Vol.12, no.2, 1999



correspond to different manifestations rising from I.6. Link with quarks and partons
the system's different quantum states. To
illustrate the fundamental concepts used these Within the orbital context quarks as well as
will be applied to three most representative partons must be reinterpreted, at best (19-23).
massive elementary particles, the electron, the They can no longer keep their status of particles.
proton and the neutron. The restrictive selection The orbital theory may incorporate specific
of these three massive particles is motivated by aspects of the parton and the quarks, but at the
the immediate application of their orbital cost of attributing them a different nature. From
conception to the nucleus structure and cohesion, the orbital perspective, partons can no longer
providing a novel interpretation of nuclear forces. stand to be point-like objects forming a cloud
behaving as a quasi-ideal gas and leading, e.g. to
The model can easily be extended to all the proton. Partons can only be retaken as
elementary particles and applies to the massive as representing the point-like density of presence
well as to the massless particles and to their whose distribution would define the body orbital
interactions of short and long range. Among all of elementary particles.
elementary particles, the electron and the proton
constitute very special particles, being the sole Also, in an attempt to integrate the quark model
two stable massive particles. Furthermore, in the (which is not unitary, applying only to hadrons)
present conceptual frame they appear as two within the orbital model (which is unitary, applying
differentiated but closely related forms of a single to all elementary particles), quarks could be
elemental system and may be looked at as regarded as a way to typify the quantum
constituting a fundamental tandem of twin substates of the hadrons' structure and gluons as
particles which present a deep mutual affinity. a way to typify internal and external interactions.
In other words, from the orbital outlook quarks
could express the subdivision (flavors and colors)
The neutron, which is unstable in its free state, is of the main orbital structure of particles into an
considered made of the unstable union between a orbital substructure.
positively charged, dense, heavy, and stable core
and a negatively charged, light, unstable shell, a Gluons could be regarded as expressing the
union that builds up its composed structure. In complex way in which these substructures would
fact the neutron as such does not exist in any be interrelated. In any case this reinterpretation
bonded state through strong interaction since this effort of the quark model does not allow
irremediably implies sharing its shell and thus the regarding quarks and gluons as particles but only
loss of its free identity. as sub-structural virtual entities. Whatever,
quarks cannot preserve their status of
I.5. The atomic nucleus and the nature, fundamental material bodies in the orbital context,
saturation and short range of nuclear forces from which all the diverse elementary particles
are conceived as generated by the different
allowed orbital quantum states of a unique
The orbital axiomatic concepts applied to the fundamental corpuscle.
proton and the neutron will be extended to the
atomic nucleus, considering at first a few light Let us recall that quarks, if seen as particles, are
nuclei such as the deuteron quite strange ones; they form three double
1H2, the triton 1H3,
the helions families: u-d, c-s and t-b and since they possess
2He3 and 2He4, and afterwards the three colors they are eighteen. With the
whole of nuclides. One of the most immediate antiquarks they form a set of thirty six. To this
applications of the orbital theory of elementary already excessively large set of fundamental
particles is concerned with nucleons and elements should be added another set of
specifically with the saturation of nuclear forces fundamental elements constituted by eight types
and the limitation of isotone, isobar and isotope of gluons, being in charge of the bonding and
families. The orbital model offers a novel and confinement of quarks. A total of forty four
particles as elemental building blocks without
straightforward explanation to the nature, applying to all elementary particles, cannot be
saturation, and short range of nuclear forces. seen as an efficient reductive system.

3


Physics Essays Vol.12, no.2, 1999



Furthermore, besides their color charge which is II. FUNDAMENTALS
quite mysterious and their perturbing non integer
electric charge of 1/3 and 2/3, quarks cannot be The core axioms of the orbital conception of
directly detected but only deduced, so they may elementary particles stands in their being
only reach the status of virtual particles. This high structured by the orbital of an elemental
content of strangeness on the part of the corpuscle. From a first basic approach let us
fundamentals of the quark model produces a introduce the main features of the elemental
conceptual uneasiness due to the feeling that it corpuscle and of its associated orbital.
may be far away from an ascertained and unitary
conception of elementary particles. II.1. The elemental corpuscle

We think that the Standard Model approach to The three fundamental concepts mentioned in the
the nature of elementary particles (hadrons), introduction, namely duality, self-celeration and
based on a diversity of composition (quarks) self-confinement, are now applied to this
instead of a diversity of quantum states of a corpuscle and form the most basic axioms.
unique structure, corresponds to a misconception.
Recall that there are only four stable particles: a. The corpuscle is assumed to be elemental and
two massive ones, i.e., the electron and the unique but dual, i.e. it has no substructure but
proton, and two massless ones (or near exists as corpuscle and anticorpuscle, with
massless), i.e., the photon and the neutrino. All opposite unitary electric charge.
other particles (misleadingly so called) are
unstable and together with resonances have b. The corpuscle is a self-celerated object, i.e. it
extremely short lifetimes, except the neutron, has an intrinsic celerity just like the photon. In
whose lifetime is comparatively quite long. This fact, the photon celerity derives from the
sole fact already strongly suggests the conception corpuscle self-celerity (celerity is here used
of them as excited states of a unique basic equivalently to speed, however celerity is
structure. considered more appropriate when it is constant
and speed when it is variable).
Furthermore, the Standard Model is unbalanced
and incomplete, being hypertrophied with respect c. The corpuscle is self-confined within a closed
to hadrons, which apart from the proton and space in which it describes an orbital. In contrast
neutron, are extremely short-lived and foreign to to the photon, which has a lineal celerity, the
the building of matter, hence only of marginal corpuscle path is self-curved with a radius of
interest. In counterpart the Standard Model has femtometric size (10-15 m or a Fermi), sticking to
nothing to propose for the structure of such a weak equilibrium between induced centripetal
crucial particles as the photon, electron and and centrifugal forces. The corpuscle cannot
neutrinos, which are stable and ubiquitous. avoid having an associated orbital, so it always
manifests itself dressed with a body orbital which
So, let us propose a conceptual alternative which shields its detection.
appeals instead to a unique fundamental element, II.2. Elementary particles
essentially characterized by the attribution of an
intrinsic, mutable orbital and a dual-form Elementary particles are considered to be the
corpuscle-anticorpuscle. Such a rudimentary diverse manifestations of the corpuscle orbital.
conceptual tool reaches nevertheless to give The diversity of elementary particles corresponds
account for all elementary particles, for their four to the diversity of structures and quantum states
types of interaction, for the nuclear structure and of the corpuscle orbital. Let us specify now the
furthermore converges into a unitary conception orbital axioms associated with elementary
particles.
of matter. Let us briefly make explicit the axioms
of the orbital theory and the corresponding a. Singly charged elementary particles are formed
description of archetypical systems, from by a single corpuscle to which is associated an
elementary particles, such as the nucleons, to orbital wave function which conjugated product
atomic nuclei. (* = 2 = ) defines the particle orbital
structure (from now on the structure orbital of
particles will be designed by instead of 2).

4


Physics Essays Vol.12, no.2, 1999



b. Neutral elementary particles are two- The two forces reach equality (F1 = F2) for
component particles, composed of a corpuscle r = ro = e2/moc2, which is the electron classical
and an anticorpuscle, spinning together and radius. If the two forces are not equal then the
leading to two superposed orbitals (+ and -), net force F induces a variation r of the orbital
which may be identical or not (+ - or + - ). radius (r = ro - r). The orbital acquires hence a
net energy:
c. The quantum states of the corpuscle orbital
define the elementary particle and any change in E = E1 - E2 = (F1 - F2)*D
Dr = D
DF*D
Dr (3)
the orbital quantum states leads to a different
elementary particle. h. Short range interactions, weak and strong,
derive directly from the particle's orbital structure
d. The stability of the elementary particle is fixed defined by its wave function . The strength of
by the stability of its structure orbital. the interaction is determined by the degree of
overlapping (extension and density) of the orbital
e. The particle's spin and the magnetic moment structures and also by their quantum states.
both derive directly from their orbital structure.
i. Long range interactions derive from the
f. The net energy of the orbital structure defines interchange of massless particles in a virtual
the intrinsic energy of the elementary particle. state, i.e. of dual orbital systems composed of a
The orbital net energy is fixed by the balance corpuscle and an anticorpuscle in a massless
between a massless energy which derives from orbital state. This state allows the particle to
the spinning of the corpuscle electric charge express its energy into celerity instead of mass,
which has hence an electromagnetic nature, and enabling it to act as long range carrier.
a massive energy which derives from an
antagonistic restoring force. The prevailing III. ARCHETYPICAL ORBITAL SYSTEMS
energy component determines the manifested
nature of the particle energy. Hence the particle
may be massive, such as e.g. the proton, as well
as massless, such as the photon.

g. The equilibrium of the particle orbital structure e p n d
is determined by two antagonistic forces F1 and
F2. One is centripetal (a Lorentz like force) and Fig. III.1: Orbital structure of the electron,
the other one is centrifugal (restoring like force). proton, neutron and deuteron
These two forces are seen as action and
reaction. III.1. Proton and Electron

The force F Within the orbital context, the proton (1) is
1 is centripetal and derives from the
spinning of the corpuscle electric charge, which considered to be constituted by a single orbital
spun by a corpuscle with positive charge and
nature is thus electromagnetic. Its magnitude +
expressed from the c.g.s system is expressed as: defined by its structure wave function p . It is
thus shaped by a unique charge distribution,
(Fig.1) whose size is of the order of the Fermi.
F1 = (e2/mo*c2)*(1/r2)*(p*c) (1) The proton structuring orbital has a relatively high
net energy of 938.27 MeV, which expressed in
where e and mo are the electron electric charge mass corresponds to 1.0072765 amu. The high
and mass, c is the celerity of light, r is the orbital energy of the proton shaping orbital makes it
radius and p is the corpuscle momentum. usually appear and behave as a dense and
massive hard body. The proton spin and magnetic
The force F2 is an antagonistic restoring force moment are both considered to derive from its
which is thus centrifugal and has a massive structuring orbital and as a matter of fact to
nature. Its magnitude is expressed as: constitute significant tracks of it.

F Its apparent size is observation-dependent, i.e.
2 = (1/r)*(p*c) (2) according to the type of collision it may appear

5


Physics Essays Vol.12, no.2, 1999



point-like or as a body with finite size. When the III.2. Neutron
impinging particles are electrons of very high
energy with a corresponding wavelength much In terms of structuring orbitals, the neutron is
shorter than the Fermi, in crossing over the proton considered to be a dual particle, composed of two
structuring orbital they perceive it as a orbitals (Fig.1), of opposite electric charge (1)
voluminous body, due to their high resolution defined by a composite structural wave-function
+ -
power. Instead, electrons of low energy with n = p + s. These orbitals are quite different.
wavelength much larger than the Fermi are One is highly energetic, of smaller size and plays
+
unable to perceive the corpuscle spatial the role of a positively charged core (p ), while
distribution which defines the particle structuring the other one is much lighter, slightly wider and
-
orbital, and due to an insufficient resolution power acts as a negatively charged shell (s ). The
they coarsely perceive the proton as a point-like core orbital is in fact considered to correspond to
object. the proton structuring orbital with a mass of
938.27 MeV/c2, while the wrapping orbital mass
The electron (1) is instead structured by an orbital is equal to only 1.29 MeV/c2 since the neutron
(Fig.1), defined by its structure wave-function - mass is equal to 939.56 MeV/c2. Both neutron
e spin and magnetic moment correspond to the
and with an energy of only 0.51 MeV, equivalent resultant components of the two orbitals.
to a mass of 0.55 x 10-3 amu. The formulation of
the total rest energy of the electron is: E = T + V, The detection of the neutron shell is made
where T expresses its structure dynamical energy difficult by its low energy with respect to the core
and V expresses that any charged particle has a energy. The high-energy collision of an impinging
potential energy with respect to its neutral original electron with a neutron corresponds in fact to a
system. The potential energy V derives from the double collision, firstly with the neutron shell of
dissociation energy of the initial dual system 1.29 MeV and secondly with its core of 938.27
(c+,c-) from which proceeds the electron (c-). MeV. According to the collision conditions the
first collision may or may not be significant.
The electron rest energy of 0.51 MeV, Furthermore, depending on the shell spatial
considered to be a potential energy with respect distribution it may leave bareheaded part of the
to the original dual neutral system, it implies thus neutron core, ending up to behave as a loose and
that the net value of its structural energy elusive shield. As a consequence, high energy
component T must be null for E = T+ V to be collisions of massive particles with neutrons are
equal to 0.51 MeV. This is the reason that makes not sensitive to the neutron shell and they
the electron structural orbital undetected and essentially hit with its core. The collision with the
core proton is brought back to the previous
considered instead to be point-like, a feature considerations about the proton.
which proceeds from its structuring corpuscle.
The spin and magnetic moment of the electron The associative superposition of the two
arise from the specific characteristics of its structuring orbitals, core ( + -
p ) and shell (s ), of
structuring orbital. the neutron is unstable. The spontaneous
disintegration of the free neutron corresponds to
The spinning dynamics of the orbital is thus totally the exclusive disintegration of its shell ( -s). The
converted into magnetic moment, without any products of the neutron degradation provide
massive component, in accordance with the fact indeed a perfect fingerprint of its structure, i.e.
that the structure's inner net kinetic energy is null the core corresponding to a proton; the shell
(T= 0). Hence, the electron mass rises orbital that restructures when getting free into an
exclusively from the potential energy (V) electron orbital; and a neutrino that carries away
proceeding from its previous dissociation from its part of the energy released by the transition of
tandem opposite charge. Further developments on the neutron wrapping orbital into the electron
the proton and electron, such as their unification orbital.
and quantization, have been exposed elsewhere
(1). The emission of a neutrino during the orbital
transition allows also to preserve the spin
conservation. Relative to the neutron stability, one

6


Physics Essays Vol.12, no.2, 1999



important point which derives from the orbital epicenters of the proton ( +
p ) and the electron
conception of the neutron stands in the excess ( -e) structuring orbitals are not concentric (the
energy of the wrapping orbital with respect to the electron structure epicenter being peripheral),
mass of the two resultant massive particles of its unlike the neutron ones (whose + and - are
disintegration, i.e. the proton and the electron. p s
epicentral).
This excess of energy induces the decay of the
neutron since it consequently slips to a lower total III.4. Atomic Nucleus
mass. The total energy and the spin are
preserved through the emission of a neutrino. The atomic nucleus can be seen as a cloud of
Besides, the neutron may be seen as an elemental anticorpuscles c+ describing orbitals
nucleus, the most elemental one since its corresponding to the proton immersed itself in a
wrapping orbital is formed by a single carrier and cloud of corpuscles c- describing unspecific
contains a single proton core. orbitals wrapping the agglomerate of protons and
acting as bonding carriers. The unspecificity of
The disintegration of the neutron obeys the weak the orbitals spun by the c- corpuscles means that
interaction. In terms of the orbital model this these orbitals do not correspond to any specific
corresponds to the sole loss of the neutron shell particles but they instead wrap the nucleus. In
( -s). In getting free, the shell restructures into a other words, the c- corpuscle describes a
new orbital corresponding to the electron ( -e). collective orbital whose quantum state does not
Since the neutron shell has an energy of 1.29 correspond to any free particle. In conventional
MeV, i.e. 0.78 MeV higher than the electron terms of protons and neutrons, the nucleus can
energy of 0.51 MeV, this energy excess is then be seen as formed by a core of protons and
dissipated into kinetic energy transmitted in part denatured neutrons, i.e. of neutrons having
to the electron and in part into the emission of a delivered their shell.
neutrino of variable energy. One of the neutron
shell's most relevant properties arises from its Nuclear neutrons are considered to lead to bare
ability to detach from its core and to get spread protons, which join the rest of nuclear protons,
within the whole nucleus. In doing so, the heavy leading hence to a core exclusively formed by
core preserves its identity but the shell, which is protons. The shells of the dissociated neutrons in
relatively very light, looses it. getting spread within the core are shared by the
core protons, tying them together. The ability of
In effect, the low energy of the neutron shell the neutron shell to dissolve within the nucleus
makes it easily captured and shared by other and to be shared by the nucleons constitutes a
nucleons, which consequently get bound together. ground stone of the orbital model. The nuclear
Nuclear neutrons loose their identity and so they forces are considered to be carried by the
can be referred at the most as pseudo-neutrons. neutron shell by getting spread into the whole
In fact the neutron only exists in the free state, nucleus. In other words, nuclear strong
and in such state it is unstable, i.e. its shell interactions are generated by the c- orbitals
detaches from its proton core and undergoes a wrapping the nucleus.
transition into a free orbital corresponding to the
electron. Inversely, within the nucleus a spread III.5. Hydrogen 1H2 and Helium 2He3
shell may be recaptured by a proton, leading thus
to a neutron. These two nuclides are isotones, i.e. from a
standard point of view they have the same
III.3. Hydrogen Atom neutron content, reduced to a single neutron. In
the orbital context, since nuclear neutrons are
The hydrogen atom represents another type of considered to dissociate into their two
proton-electron association. The H atom and the constituents, core and shell, it thus means that
neutron may be seen as two different both nuclides have homologue shells, generated
configurations of the same dual system p+,e-. In by a single corpuscle, but differ in their core
both cases, the proton acts as a core, but in the H respectively composed of two and three protons.
atom the electron preserves its identity and wraps The shell with a single corpuscular carrier may
the proton at a very large distance of some 105 have three different cores containing one, two, or
times the proton size. In such a configuration the three protons, and corresponding to the neutron,

7


Physics Essays Vol.12, no.2, 1999



the deuteron, and the helion 2He3. Consequently equivalent in the orbital frame to a three-proton
the wrapping orbital is differently stretched along core and a double wrapping orbital proceeding
with the different cores size, and therefore the from the two dislocated neutron shells. Although
resultant different degrees of stress confers them the shell wrapping the three protons is formed by
different net energies. two orbitals, such an association is nevertheless
unstable and degrades. The triton instability
The deuteron 1H2, conventionally considered to derives from the balance, on one hand from the
be composed of a proton and a neutron, is in the repulsion between the two orbital corpuscles and
orbital context composed of a two proton core the repulsion between the core protons, and on
wrapped by the dissolved neutron shell which is the other hand, from the attraction between core
then shared by the two protons (Fig.1). Since the and wrapping orbital. The shell net cohesive
mass of two protons weights 2.01455 amu and energy corresponds to the balance between two
the deuteron has a mass of 2.01355 amu it has antagonist energies, one cohesive (E1) and the
hence a mass defect of -1.000x10-3 amu which other one dispersive (E2), derived from two sets
corresponds, on the part of the wrapping orbital, of opposite forces. The cohesive energy (E1)
to a net negative energy of -0.93 MeV. The raises from the attractive force between the
deuteron stability stands on the balance between positively charged proton core and the negatively
two antagonist forces, the attractive electrostatic charged shell. The dispersive energy (E2) raises
forces between the wrapping orbital and the core, from two sources, the repulsive forces between
and the repulsive electrostatic forces between the the core protons (E21) and the ones between the
two protons of the core. shell carriers (E22). The shell net bonding energy
is:
The helion 2He3, being conventionally composed
of one neutron and two protons, is thus in the E = E1 (core-shell) - [E21 (core) + E22 (shell)] (5)
orbital version composed of a three protons core
and a single corpuscle wrapping orbital. The On the other hand, this net energy is equal to the
helion has a mass of 3.014933 amu and since the nucleus mass defect:
mass of three protons corresponds to 3.021830
amu, the wrapping orbital has thus a net energy E = M*c2 - (mp*c2)*A (6)
of -6.897 x 10-3 amu or -6.42 MeV. Its stability
stands on the balance of the attractive where M, mp, A , and c are respectively the
electrostatic forces between the wrapping orbital nucleus mass, the proton mass, the mass number,
and the core and of the repulsive electrostatic and the celerity of light. At first it may seem
forces between the three protons of the core. strange that the triton 1H3 with its double orbital
The effective stability of this single-corpuscle results unstable while the helion 2He3 with a
wrapping orbital manifests that it has enough single orbital is stable, both having identical cores
energy to tie together the three core protons, i.e. composed of three protons. However the
the bonding energy (E1) between the orbital and explanation is straightforward and comes up from
the core is greater than the dispersive energy (E2) the electrostatic repulsion between the two
within the core: corpuscles of the wrapping orbital, which
weakens its effective bonding efficiency. It ends
E = E1 (core-shell bonding energy) - E2 (core up that the net force is not strong enough to make
inner dispersive energy this system stable.

(in which E1 > E2 ) (4) The 2He4 and the 1H3 nuclei have a wrapping
orbital containing two negative corpuscles, since
III.6. Hydrogen 1H3 and Helium 2He4 both have two dissolved neutrons. However,
These two isotones contain two neutrons, although they have wrapping orbitals containing
meaning that in the orbital frame they have the same number of corpuscles, the 2He4 is
homologue wrapping orbitals formed by two exceptionally stable in contrast to the unstable
corpuscles. This dual orbital can confine from 1H3, whereas in the latter case the wrapping
three up to eight protons. The triton orbital must only bind a three-proton core instead
1H3,
composed of one proton and two neutrons, is of a four-proton one. This difference rises from
the balance between the repulsive forces within

8


Physics Essays Vol.12, no.2, 1999



the core and within the wrapping orbital and the determined by the balance of, the attractive
attractive forces between wrapping orbital and forces between shell and core, and the dispersive
core. Let us point out another factor which forces inner to both. However for the particular
affects the nucleus cohesive energy and thus the case of the deuteron there is no repulsive force
stability: a factor that instead has to do with the inner to its shell since it only contains a single
spin. In effect, since the carrier.
2He4 proton core has
four half-integer spins and its shell two integer
ones, hence the system can easily match them to IV. NEUTRON STRUCTURE, CHARGE
achieve a null net spin. DENSITY and CLASSICAL RADIUS

IV.1. The neutron and proton radial charge density
III.7. Short Range Interactions: Strong and
Weak Let us focus here on an experimental information
concerned with the radial dependence of the
Short range interactions of both types, strong and charge density of the proton and the neutron, as
weak, proceed from the orbital nature of shown in figure IV.1. Although it has been a text
elementary particles and are directly generated book knowledge for years (24), its deep
by their structuring orbital. A restricted analogy relevance and significance have not been clearly
extracted from the atomic scale is provided by understood and still less satisfactorily used. The
the covalent forces whose short range is limited Standard Model omission of this crucial
by the atomic orbital size. The structure of the experimental data is incomprehensible.
bonding shell of small nuclei is deeply submitted
to quantum effects, while for large nuclei these
effects are weakened and they rebound on
nuclear interactions. The differences between the
roughly typified weak and strong interactions
would rise from the absence or presence of a
shell and from its different quantum states,
determined by its own characteristics (e.g. its
carrier content and odd or even value) and also
by its dependence on the proton core (e.g. its
proton content).

An example of weak interaction is provided by
the disintegration of the neutron, which in the
orbital frame corresponds to the collapse of its
shell, which is dependent on its own
characteristics and on its relationship with the
inner core. The neutron can be seen as a system Fig.IV.1: Radial dependence of the charge
composed of a core containing a sole proton and density of the proton and the neutron. The
a shell held up by a single corpuscle, in a quantum neutron clearly shows a positive core (zone +)
state presenting an energy excess of 0.78 MeV, and a negative shell (zone -). The radial
and thus can be considered an excited state with charge distribution of the neutron shell has
respect to the ground state constituted by the been deduced from the neutron and the
massive products of its disintegration, i.e. the free proton charge distribution.
electron and proton.
It is well known that the nucleonic potential
An example of strong interaction is provided by becomes repulsive at a distance smaller than a
the deuteron, whose cohesion is generated by the Fermi, evidencing hence the presence of a
wrapping orbital of its two protons core. The repulsive hard core. In the orbital conception of
range of the interaction is fixed by the extension elementary particles it has been conferred to this
of the deuteron single-carrier orbital and its experimental information all the relevance that it
strength is fixed by the core and the wrapping deserves. Within its context, the neutron is
orbital self- characteristics, and also by their considered to be formed by a positive core, which
interdependence. The nucleus cohesion is is nothing else but a proton, and by a negative

9


Physics Essays Vol.12, no.2, 1999



shell. The proton is itself structured by the orbital On another hand, it is known that the
spun by a c+ corpuscular carrier. The shell is experimental mass difference between the
instead structured by an orbital spun by a c- neutron and the proton is equal to 1.29 MeV/c2,
carrier. It is considered to be very reactive due to which corresponds hence, in the orbital frame, to
its affinity to be shared with other neighboring the mass of the shell or equivalently to a shell
protons. For example, the neutron shell (unstable) energy of 1.29 MeV. Let us now consider a
has a strong trend to accommodate a second corpuscle c- falling from infinity into the field of a
proton in its core, which increases its stability, proton, until acquiring a potential energy of 1.29
leading to the deuteron (stable). In further MeV. In a Coulomb field the potential energy E is
building steps the primary trend is to preserve two equal to:
protons for each c- shell carrier, which acts as the
cohesive element of the nuclear structure. The E = F(x)dx = (q2/x2)dx (7)
departure from this primary trend is due to
secondary effects, e.g. shielding and saturation. Hence, a unitary electric charge q falling in a
Coulomb field from infinity down to a distance r
The orbital conception of the neutron is in to the field epicenter (e.g. a proton) will acquire a
agreement with Figure IV.1 in which its radial potential energy: E = q2/r. Since the neutron shell
distribution of the charge density clearly has an energy of 1.29 MeV, thus:
evidences a positive core (zone +) and a negative
shell (zone -). The proton core is the cause of the r = q2/E = 1.1 * 10-15 m = 1.1 Fm (8)
repulsive behavior at a shorter radius than the
Fermi and the shell plays instead the role of a i.e. the classical radius of the neutron is equal to
bonding element. The charge distribution of the about 1.1 Fermi. The orbital approach to the
shell (added in the figure) has been directly neutron structure provides a simple way to get its
deduced from the one of the proton and the classical radius, whose value is in good
neutron. agreement with experimental data, in particular if
compared to the one of 1.07 Fm of the mean
The quark model of the neutron (u,d,d) with electromagnetic radius of nucleons (25).
fractional charges (+2/3, -1/3, -1/3) does not
implicitly predict a positive core and a negative V. NUCLEAR FUSION, RADIOACTIVITY bb-,
shell neither the nucleonic repulsive core bb+, gg AND ELECTRON CAPTURE
potential, and is hardly able to account for it
without appealing to highly artificial and twisted V.1 Nuclear Fusion from H, D and T
arguments, as always do the quark model and its
supporting QCD, such as all their ad hoc The fusion of a proton and a neutron goes by way
properties, e.g. the quark fractional electric of strong interaction, forming the deuteron. In the
charges, their six flavors, the three colors of each orbital context, this ensues from the neutron
favor, the height types of gluons, etc... wrapping orbital or shell which gets shared and
acts as a link. The underlying process is
IV.2. The neutron classical radius straightforward since it corresponds to the
reaction of the neutron shell with the nearby
proton, leading to a new wrapping shell common
The classical radius of the neutron can be derived to both protons: the bare proton and the neutron
straightforwardly from the potential energy. In core proton. The deuteron appears thus formed
effect, the orbital conception of the neutron by a two-proton core wrapped together by the
assumes that it is made of a core and a shell. original neutron shell, which is thence shared by
Since the core is considered to be a proton whose both. The deuteron may thus be regarded as an
structural orbital is spun by a corpuscular carrier inflated neutron with a core of two protons
instead of only one.
with positive electric charge (c+), and since the
shell is instead considered to be spun by a The fusion H,H of light hydrogen, i.e. of two
corpuscular carrier of negative electric charge protons into a deuteron is highly difficult and goes
(c-), the negative shell has hence an electrostatic through weak interaction which confers on the
potential energy with respect to the positive core. process a very small cross-section. According to
the orbital conception of elementary particles,

10


Physics Essays Vol.12, no.2, 1999



since protons are constituted by a bare-core In the D,T fusion the deuteron single (c-)
orbital, i.e. without any wrapper, they are hence wrapping orbital reacts with the triton double
unable to bond together without previously getting wrapping one. The fusion depends on the
a bonding shell. This is the main reason that wrapping orbital's reactivity and the lifetime of
makes their fusion so uneasy, and now the the fused system depends on the acquired
question is how do they get a bonding shell in quantum state and on the allowed disintegration
order to have a chance to bond during collision. channels. The transitory system formed is made
To do so, part of their kinetic energies must be of five protons wrapped by three (c-) carriers,
materialized into pairs of corpuscle-anticorpuscle which turns out to be unstable and dissociates into
(c+,c-) when colliding. Then, if a corpuscle (c-) is
captured by the two colliding protons it forms a a neutron and helium 2He4 nucleus.
common wrapping orbital which bonds them
together. In the D, 2He3 fusion the deuteron single (c-)
wrapping orbital reacts with the also single (c-)
Alternatively, if we consider that a corpuscle (c-) wrapping orbital of the helion 2He3, leading in a
is at first captured by one of the two protons it transient way to a double (c-) orbital wrapping a
turns into a neutron and thus at this step of the five-proton core, system which is unstable and
process it may be schematically assimilated to a disintegrates into helium 2He4 through expulsion
fusion between a proton and a neutron. On its of one proton.
turn, the anticorpuscle (c+), formed conjointly to
the corpuscle (c-), is rejected and its orbital In the T, 2He3 fusion the tritium provides a double
structure acquires the + identity. Besides, in (c-) wrapping orbital and the 2He3 a single (c-)
seeking spin conservation, a neutrino is also one. The orbitals' reaction transitorily leads to a
emitted, and since the neutrino is here considered triple (c-) wrapping orbital with a six-proton core.
to be made of a pair corpuscle-anticorpuscle, it In this arrangement, the attractive forces
ends up that two corpuscle-anticorpuscle pairs between core and shell are not strong enough to
must materialize during the proton's collision to be overcome the repulsive ones inside the core and
able to fuse. The limiting factor which fixes the
fusion cross-section corresponds thus to the to the shell and thus the system vanishes
probability of the colliding protons to create two instantaneously.
pairs (c+,c-) and to capture one of the corpuscles
(c-). V.2. Radioactivity bb-, bb+, gg and Electron Capture

The H,D fusion differs from the H,H one mainly The radioactivity - corresponds, from the orbital
in the fact that there is already a wrapping (c-) stand point, to the ejection of a carrier corpuscle
orbital, the deuteron one. The fusion requires thus (c-) from the nucleus wrapping orbital. Once free,
only the deuteron (c-) wrapper to be shared with the corpuscle acquires an intrinsic structuring
the bare proton, leading so to the 2He3 nuclide, orbital which corresponds to the electron. Of all
formed by three core protons bonded by a single nuclei, the neutron, which can be seen as a one
(c-) wrapping orbital. Besides, during the collision nucleon nucleus, constitutes the simplest case of
a pair corpuscle-anticorpuscle is formed and radioactivity -, corresponding to the
ejected in form of . disintegration of the neutron wrapping shell.

In the H,T fusion the triton 1H3 provides a double
wrapping orbital (c-,c-). Thus, the fused system The electron capture corresponds to the inverse
ends up formed by a four core protons sharing a process, i.e. when an electron falls into the
bonding shell containing two (c-) corpuscular nucleus its body orbital dissolves and its
carriers, corresponding to the orbital scheme of corpuscular carrier (c-) acquires then an extrinsic
the helium nucleus 2He4. orbital which runs on the nucleus, acting
consequently as nucleons linking carrier. In terms
In the D,D fusion each colliding nuclide has a of orbitals the process leads to the transition of
wrapping orbital with one (c-), which hence leads the (c-) corpuscle from its intrinsic orbital,
to a double wrapping orbital (c-,c-) with a four
protons core, system which is stable and corresponding to the electron, to an enlarged one
corresponds to the helium which extends within the whole nucleus.
2He4.


11


Physics Essays Vol.12, no.2, 1999



The radioactivities + and have a unique origin orbital cohesive energy is defined as equal to:
corresponding to two manifestations of the same
process. Both arise from the creation of a pair ET = ((mp*A) - M)*c2 (9)
corpuscle-anticorpuscle (c-,c+) within the nucleus.
In the radioactivity +, the pair dissociates and the where mp, M, A, and c represent the proton
anticorpuscle (c+) is ejected in form of positron, mass, the nucleus mass, the atomic number and
while the corpuscle (c-) remains within the the speed of light.
nucleus and passes to widen the nuclide wrapping
orbital. In the radioactivity the pair corpuscle- These three quantities (ET, EA, and EN) acquire a
anticorpuscle created remains bond together and deep specific significance, and are essential to
is ejected in the configuration corresponding to apprehend the characteristics and behavior of
the photon. nuclides. They respectively define the total
cohesive energy (ET) provided by the whole
Let us stress that the radioactivity -, on one wrapping corpuscular carriers of the shell, the
hand, and the radioactivities + and , on the other mean cohesive energy (EA) perceived by each
hand, obey thus to different processes. While the core proton, and the mean cohesive energy (EN)
radioactivity - corresponds solely to the that delivers each wrapping corpuscular carrier.
expulsion of a corpuscle (c-) already present in Their behaviors, observed through their evolution
the nucleus, the radioactivities + and imply the within isotope, isotone, and isobar families, allows
previous creation of a pair (c-,c+). to profile the scheme of their specific
characteristics. Let us thus focus on the evolution
VI. NATURE and SATURATION of of these three basic orbital quantities within one
NUCLEAR FORCES type of isofamilies, the isotones, and check if their
respective behaviors are consequent with the
The nature and saturation of nuclear forces are orbital stand point.
regarded from the perspective of the orbital Let us recall that the net cohesive energy (E
context. It differs from the standard one which T) of
the wrapping orbital corresponds to the balance
coarsely considers that neutrons preserve their between two antagonistic energies (E1 and E2),
identity within the nucleus. Instead, the orbital derived from two opposite sets of forces.
theory of elementary particles considers the
nuclear neutron to dissociate into its two ET = E1 - E2 = E1 - (E21 + E22) (10)
components, a proton core and a shell. So, it
provides an original and subtle conception of the The cohesive energy (E1) results from the
physical underlying grounds governing the attractive forces between the positively charged
protons core and the negatively charged wrapping
periodical table of elements and brings new bases orbital. The dispersive energy (E
for the laws controlling the nucleus stability. It 2) raises from
two sources: the repulsive forces between the
also fixes a limit to the nucleus size and thus a core protons leading to a core dispersive energy
threshold to heavy nuclides, and it brings a (E21) and the ones between the shell carriers
straightforward understanding of the saturation of leading to a shell dispersive energy (E22). The
the nuclides' content within isotone, isobar, and cohesive energies ET, EA and EN of the wrapping
isotope families. The saturation of nuclear forces orbital represent the main parameters fixing the
splits up into two separate sources, leading to two stability of the nucleus and respectively express
the total net energy, the net energy per nucleon,
separate saturations, i.e. the saturation of the and the net energy per neutron of the wrapping
proton content of the nucleus core and the orbital. The reinterpretation of the nature of
saturation of the corpuscular carriers content of nuclear forces, based on the spreading of the
its wrapping and cohesive shell. neutron's shell all over the nucleus, has been
checked over the totality of nuclides, which from
In regard to the shell cohesive energy it merges reference (2) comprises 2226 nuclides.
three main quantities of fundamental physical
relevance, i.e. the total orbital energy (E Here, the sole case of isotones will be considered
T), the
orbital energy per nucleon (E at following, yet isotopes and isobars have been
A)and the orbital
energy per (conventional) neutron (E reported elsewhere (29).
N). The total

12


Physics Essays Vol.12, no.2, 1999



VI.1. SATURATION OF NUCLEAR
FORCES WITHIN ISOTONE FAMILIES

Isotones keep a fixed number of dissociated
neutron, while the protons content varies and so
does the nuclei net electric charge. Since the
proton is barehanded, i.e. not provided with
wrapping orbital or shell, its inclusion into the
diverse nuclides of an isotone family maintains
constant the number of wrapping corpuscular
carriers. Nevertheless the wrapping orbital
energy is affected, since a varying number of
core protons rebound on the attractive forces
between it and the core. In other words, while the
negative charge of the shell remains constant, the
positive charge of the core varies and affects
thus the strength of the mutual core-shell
attraction. Fig.VI.1.1: Orbital total cohesive energy vs. proton
content, for the isotones with neutron contents from 7
However, if an increment of protons within the to 157 with step 10.
core does increase the attractive strength
between core and shell, it does not lead
necessarily to an increment of the orbital bonding
energy and in fact it presents counterparts leading
to the weakening of nuclear forces in two
opposite limits. Since within any isotone family
the shell has a constant carrier content, one limit
arises from a so low proton content that the
attractive forces between core and shell end up
being too weak to overcome the repulsive forces
within the constant shell.

Schematically, it may be considered that the
system disintegrates by explosion of the shell.
Inversely, the other limit arises from a so high
proton content that the repulsive forces within the
core are excessive and overcome the attractive
bonding forces between the core and the
wrapping orbital, i.e. they overthrow the bonding Fig.VI.1.2: Orbital total cohesive energy vs.
capacity of the constant shell. In this second case proton content, for the isotones with 87
it may be said that the system disintegration neutrons.
arises from the core explosion.

the core protons and the wrapping corpuscular
VI.1.a. Saturation of the orbital total energy
vs. proton content carriers, however it simultaneously increases the
repulsive forces within the core. The saturation of
Figures VI.1.1 and VI.1.2 evidence the raise of the shell total bonding energy occurs when the
the nuclear total bonding energy (E increment of the proton content does not improve
T) up to
saturation along with the increment of the nucleus any more the net orbital energy. In other words,
proton content, within isotones. In the orbital the energy gain of the wrapping orbital saturates
context this variable number of protons not through the incorporation of protons and
corresponds to the part of core protons which are consequently the shell becomes unable to confine
compensated by the corpuscles of the wrapping more protons within the core.
orbital. An increment of the proton content
increases the electrostatic forces between


13


Physics Essays Vol.12, no.2, 1999



VI.1.b. Orbital mean energy per nucleon vs.
nucleon content

Figures VI.1.3 and VI.1.4 stress the fact that the
shell bonding energy per nucleon (EA) presents a
maximum, which favors maximum stability of the
nucleus. In the orbital context, the shell bonding
energy per nucleon derives from the mean
presence density of the bonding carriers in the
neighborhood of each core proton. In other
words, the core protons are immersed into a
cloud formed by the carriers' density of presence,
which generates the wrapping shell.


Fig.VI.1.4: Orbital cohesive energy per
nucleon vs. nucleon content, for the isotones
with 85 to 89 neutrons.

VI.1.c. Orbital mean energy per neutron vs.
proton content

The mean orbital energy per neutron (EN)
represents in the orbital context a fundamental
quantity since it corresponds to the mean bonding
energy carried out by each shell carrier and
which is the source of the nucleus stability. Figure
VI.1.5 evidences that this quantity increases
along with each proton added, showing some
tendency to saturate. Saturation occurs when the
Fig.VI.1.3: Orbital cohesive energy per mean cohesive energy of each carrier (EN)
becomes too weak to sustain the growing proton
nucleon vs. nucleon content, for the same core, due to the increasing dispersive forces with
isotones than in fig.VI.1.1. the core.

The carrier density presents an optimum which
leads to a maximum bonding energy of the shell.
When the proton content first raises so does the
energy balance derived from antagonistic effects
due on one hand to an increased repulsive forces
within the engrossing proton core and on the
other hand to the increased electrostatic field
from the core which consequently intensifies the
shell- bonding energy. After reaching a maximum
the net energy balance decreases, stressing that
for a still increasing density of presence of
carriers the repulsive electrostatic forces among
them raises in such a way that they prevail and
saturate the net total bonding energy (ET),
consequently decreasing the energy per core Fig.VI.1.5: Orbital cohesive energy per neutron vs.
proton (E proton content, for the same isotones than in fig.VI.1.1
A) when the number of protons further
increases. and fig.VI.1.3.

14


Physics Essays Vol.12, no.2, 1999



VI.1.d. Splitting of the orbital energy vs. kept out of suspicion, taking also into account that
even or odd value of the proton content their mathematical backing is highly complex,
artificial and doubtful. To say nothing about the
For isotones this splitting effect is always present associated and necessary gluons, still more
whatever the proton content is even or odd. Since artificial particles. We think that the scientific
for isotones only the core is affected through a community should be more critical and cautious
varying proton content, the splitting of the shell about considering them as real particles (26). The
cohesive energy is thus promoted by the spin standard model may end up representing an
interactions proceeding from the varying core. unfortunate example of theorists' strategy to
Figure VI.1.4 evidences the splitting of the orbital approach physical reality, based on a
energy per nucleon (EA) along with an even or mathematical hypertrophy which has lead to an
odd number of protons. This split effect is atrophy of a previous settlement of reliable
observed in all isotone families, i.e. it is conceptual grounds.
independent of the neutron content and of its
even or odd value. The evolution of higher VII.2. About physical reality
energies corresponds to an even number of
protons and the one of lower energies to an odd Most theorists don't care to understand the
number, whatever the even or odd value of the physical reality underlying physical experiments,
neutrons content of the isotone families. Since the but instead they are just concerned with
carrier content of the shell is constant, this developing a mathematical formulation that fits
splitting is thus induced by the core, whose proton with the experimental results. It will be always
content represents the variable parameter. possible to mathematically fit a set of
experimental results if the formulation is complex
VII. COMMENTS enough and contains multiple parameters (such as
VII.1. About the presumed experimental the 18 ones of the standard model). The higher is
evidence of quarks the complexity of the mathematical formulation
the more distant it is from a realistic
There is an enormous mathematical interpretation representation of physical reality. Moreover, the
of quark-claimed evidence, but no direct refutal of accessibility to physical reality or the
observation. Quarks are bound particles within disdain for its apprehension leads to an attitude
hadrons, so they would be virtual particles at the that deeply impoverishes the aims of physics.
most. To acquire the status of real particles they
should get free from their confinement and in VII.3. Antiparticles
order not to mistake them with other real particles
their fractional charge should also be observed. A Antiparticles are straightforwardly described
mathematical fitting with experimental results is since the c+ and c- carriers structure both
not a sufficient requirement for an identification particles and antiparticles. For example, the
to physical reality. To illustrate this standpoint let electron (particle) is structured by a c- carrier and
us give the example of nuclear forces. the positron (antiparticle) by a c+ carrier. Instead
the proton (particle) is structured by a c+ carrier
For a long period of time they have been
formulated within the Yukawa interpretation of and the antiproton (antiparticle) by a c- carrier.
short range interactions. Good mathematical What differs an electron (e-) from an antiproton
fittings with experiments were obtained in many (p-) and a positron (e+) from a proton (p+) is the
cases. So, the associated physical interpretation quantum state of their structuring orbital. Neutral
of reality was an interchange of pions (and also particles and antiparticles, both formed by a pair
of kaons). This physical interpretation, which has (c+,c-), differ in that the orbital of the c+ and c-
been considered for quite a while as the correct carriers can be in different quantum states which
one, has now been abandoned. So, if pions which are inverted, e.g. [c+(|1>),c-(|2>)] for a particle
are real particles have fallen from grace as and [c+(|2>),c-(|1>)] for the corresponding
strong-interaction carriers after a long antiparticle.
mathematical support, why quarks, which are not
even real particles but only virtual ones, should be

15


Physics Essays Vol.12, no.2, 1999



VII.4. About the electron, proton and In the , p and , p reactions, the negative carrier
neutron c- of the quantum |(c+,c-)>, in form of or , is
transfered to the proton, leading to a neutron and
The method used to calculate the neutron radius the c+ carrier acquires diverse quantum states
(more specifically the one of its shell) cannot be |
used for the electron or the proton whose radius ( c+)>, i.e. different structural orbitals |(e+)>,
is differently derived (1). The reason stands in |(+)> or |( +)>, corresponding to e+, + or +.
that the neutron is considered to have a proton
core and thus the standard electrostatic Let us now interpret the following reaction:
formulation can be used.
e- + p+ 
 n + nn (4)
This is not the case for the electron and the
proton which have no core. They are structured
by a single orbital which is considered to be
differently sustained (1). Their structuring orbital e- p+ n
is confined through the equilibrium of two nn
antagonistic forces, one centripetal (a Lorentz like Here the impinging quantum is constituted by an
force) and a centrifugal force (restoring like electron. The reaction is quite similar to the
force). These two forces are seen as action and previous ones but in this new case the incident
reaction. Still, further quantitative developments particle contains only one structural carrier, which
(1) have lead to the unification of the electron, is transferred to the proton, thus leading again to
muon, proton, neutron and H atom, achieved a neutron. The excess energy of the reaction is
through a magnitude Q = m  r which ends up to expulsed by means of a quantum |(c+,c-)> in the
have the same value for all them and equal to neutrino state.
Q = (e h ro)/2, (e and ro are the electron charge
and classical raduis and h the Planck constant (29). Let us interpret the following reaction leading to
the deuteron lease:
VII.4.1. Neutron creation
Let us consider a few reactions leading to gg + d 
 n + p
neutron creation and interpret them from the
orbital structure standpoint:

nn + p 
 n + e+ (1) gg d+ n p+
nn + p 
 n + mm+ (2)
gg + p 
 n + pp+ (3) Here the impinging quantum |(c+,c-)> is a
photon which is absorbed and releases its energy
to the deuteron. In the induced lease of the
deuteron |(c+,c+,c-)>, one of its core proton
|(c+)> gets free while the other one |(c+)>
nn or gg p n e+, mm+ or pp+ keeps the shell |( c-)>, leading thus to a neutron
|(c+,c-)>.
These three reactions belong to the same
archetype, i.e. a quantum ( or ) impinges on a VII..2. Neutron disintegration
proton and reacts with it, generating a neutron
and a positively charged particle. Since all neutral n 
 p+ + e- + nn
particles are considered formed by two
oppositively charged structural carriers and
charged particles are considered dissociated
neutral particles, thus structured by the orbital of
a single carrier, hence the three positively n p+ e nn
charged particles e+, + and + have the same
structure (c+) but are in three different quantum The free neutron is unstable and its disintegration
states. The neutron is here considered formed by is exothermic. The neutron looses its shell (of
a core proton structured by the positive carrier 1,29 MeV) which, in getting free, restructures
and a shell structured by the negative carrier. into an electron (of 0,51 MeV) and the energy

16


Physics Essays Vol.12, no.2, 1999



excess is materialized into a neutrino. The bare and we consider that it may also be inappropriate
neutron core leads to a proton. for the weak interactions. The Z and W particles
may not be imperatively related to these
VII.5. Paired (c+,c-) system and isolated (c+) interactions, as the muon, pions and kaons in
and (c-) systems regard to the strong ones.

The creation of any elemental particle is here Instead we have proposed that nuclear forces,
considered to always go through the hop of a dual strong and weak, both of short range, derive from
system formed by a pair of corpuscle (c+,c-) from the involvement of a shell. For instance, the
a virtual to an energetic state, leading to a neutral neutron disintegration goes through the weak
particle. Space can be thought as populated of interaction because it corresponds to the loss of
virtual quanta formed by self-existent corpuscle- its shell (c-) which restructures in getting free,
anticorpuscle pairs in an aenergetic state. When emitting then a quantum in form of an
energy is transferred to the virtual dual systems it antineutrino. On its part, the p,p fusion into D
causes their hopping to energetic states. During goes through the weak interaction because
its transfer to the energetic state the dual (c+,c-) protons' lack of a shell and their fusion requires
system may dissociate to form two separate the previous acquisition of one, which implies the
single corpuscle systems (c+) and (c-), leading to creation of a pair of quanta (c+, c-) in form of a
the diverse charged particles according to the neutrino and an antineutrino, with the dissociation
quantum state of their orbital structure (Fig. of one quantum (c+, c-) into (c+) and (c-) and the
VII.1). capture of (c-) which acts then as a shell. Instead
the p,n fusion into D goes through the strong
Neutral Positive Negative interaction because the neutron has already a
Particle Particle Particle shell ready to be shared, without the need of the
previous creation and dissociation of any (c+, c-)
Y
Y  Y
Y + Y
Y - quantum.

VII.7. Conceptual unity of matter

The concepts developed upon matter fundamental
blocks lead to a unitary conception of elementary
Fig. VII.1: Partition of any neutral particle particles. All particles have been conceived from
into two oppositely charged ones a unique corpuscle, which manifests itself in two
complementary forms, i.e. corpuscle and
VII.6. Evolution of the conception of nuclear anticorpuscle. All particles and antiparticles
forces derive directly from the type of corpuscle (c+
or/and c-) which generates them through its
Nuclear forces have been at first conceived orbital. The particles formed by the orbital of a
through the Yukawa interpretation and the cause single corpuscle are thus electrically charged and
of their short range was attributed to the mass of those formed by a pair corpuscle-anticorpuscle
the carrier. So, at the discovery of the muon it are hence neutral.
has been considered to be the formulated massive
carrier, but soon it has been disregarded and at
the discovery of the neutral and charged pions
these have been retained as the ascertained
carriers. However at the discovery of the four
kaons these have also been involved conjointly
with the pions as carriers. Later with the rise of Fig. VII.2: Particle decay to a lower mass one
the Standard Model they all fell from grace in with emission of a neutral quantum
favor of the gluons, that auxiliary would also be
the carriers of the inter-nucleons bonding forces. The diversity of elementary particles is
considered to derive from the multiplicity of
What a poorly convincing evolution! The Yukawa quantum states of their structuring orbital, spun by
interpretation of the cause of short range has the fundamental corpuscle. The particle rest
ended up to be wrong for the strong interactions energy is defined by the net energy of its

17


Physics Essays Vol.12, no.2, 1999



structuring orbital. In any orbital exoenergetic For an identical spin orientation (i.e. identical
transition the corpuscle emits a pair (c+,c-), giratory direction) negative and positive charges
therefore reproducing itself and its anti-itself (Fig. generate magnetic moments of opposite
VII.2). This standpoint provides an extreme orientation. Since particles and antiparticles have
conceptual simplicity to the nature of elementary opposite charges thus they have also opposite
particles and to their genesis. magnetic moments (with respect to their spin).
This intrinsic S- asymmetry may or may not
VII.8. Asymmetrical composition of the Universe induce, depending on the specific structural
quantum state of each type of particle-
antiparticles, a weak difference of stability
The Universe is observed to be asymmetrical (presumably related to the CP violation).
with respect to its composition at the level of
elementary particles. In effect, protons are not The proton and the electron would thus be the
compensated by antiprotons and neither electrons only two stable massive end products of an
by anti-electrons (positrons), besides the fact that intrinsic weak asymmetry between particles and
their coexistence is incompatible. Within the antiparticles, that would have lead to a
standard conception of antimatter the diverse fundamental self-asymmetry of the Universe.
alternatives are: the Universe may have never This asymmetrical behavior would have been the
contained antimatter, or for some unknown Universe's solution to avoid self-annihilation.
reason matter and antimatter may have been Although the structural orbital asymmetry
separated, or still the amount of matter may have between proton and electron still retains some
overcome the one of antimatter and the actual basic mystery, at least symmetry between matter
material Universe would be the residue of their and anti-matter is preserved, being moved to a
annihilation. The orbital conception provides a more fundamental level constituted by the duality
novel possibility. The duality matter-antimatter corpuscle-anticorpuscle.
would be satisfied at the corpuscle level, i.e. the
Universe would have been composed of an equal Whatever the underlying reason, we are
amount of corpuscles and anticorpuscles. confronted with the experimental evidence of a
basic compositional asymmetry of the Universe,
However the Universe would intrinsically possess exclusively composed of two stable massive
an asymmetrical behavior at the orbital level. The particles of opposite electric charge, the proton
positive anticorpuscle would have acquired a and the electron. Within the conceptual frame
structural orbital corresponding to the proton proposed, the fundamental asymmetry of the
while the negative corpuscle would have acquired Universe still emerges through another of its
the electron one. This asymmetrical behavior facets, provided this time by the neutron. This
might be typified at the level of proton and third particle involved in the construction of
antiproton by assuming a weak asymmetry matter, still preserves the asymmetry between
between both particles, proceeding from their proton and electron since the neutron is
structuring orbitals and leading to opposite considered to be formed by the superposition of
magnetic moments for the same spin orientation the proton and the electron structuring orbitals.
(Fig. VII.3). Such an intrinsic asymmetry would
have, at a cosmological time-scale, lead to the In such association the lighter electron orbital is
mutation of antiprotons into fossil electrons. affected by the heavier proton orbital, which
implies that the electron has in fact lost its identity
of free electron to turn into a new slightly heavier
orbital wrapping the proton. Such new orbital with
 a mass of 1.29 MeV/c2 forms then the neutron
S S shell while the proton constitutes the neutron
core. In the free state this association appears to
be unstable since the free neutron degrades into a
massive tandem proton-electron, but it is the
Fig. VII.3: Partial asymmetry between particle master piece of nuclear structure by sharing its
and antiparticles (S-m asymmetry) shell with protons.

18


Physics Essays Vol.12, no.2, 1999



VII.9. Nature of free space or vacuum exchange of (c+,c-) pairs in form of virtual
photons and gravitons.
We have considered up to now corpuscles and
anticorpuscles as being the fundamental elements In order to check the foundations of the orbital
of matter and their intrinsic orbital as structuring conception of elementary particles and to contrast
elementary particles. The basic unit is formed by it with the quark one, let us point out some of its
a corpuscle-anticorpuscle tandem constituting a most specific implications.
neutral elementary particle, a unit which may get
broken into its two components, leading then to a
pair of charged elementary particles. Let us * The first one is concerned with the structure of
consider the dual system pairs (c+,c-) and focus the proton which should evidence a single
on its net energy. It has been expressed before corpuscle of integer electric charge (however, in
that the net energy is the residue between the deep scattering experiments the creation of
compressive (centripetal) and expansive internal quanta (c+,c-) may shelder the non
(centrifugal) components of the orbital energy. If composite structure of the proton). In contrast ,
these do not perfectly match they lead to an from the Standard Model deep scatttering should
energy residue which represents the net energy evidence collision to fractional electric charges
of the corresponding elementary particle. and of different sign, from the three quarks of the
proton.
However, it should not be discarded that the two
antagonistic energy components of the dual * A more specific and conclusive differentiation
system (c+,c-) can fully compensate and therefore could emerge from the neutron. In effect, from its
its net energy would then be null. Still more, orbital conception the neutron is implicitly
diverse orbital quantum states might lead to a net considered as formed by a positive core and a
null energy. Hence free space could be populated negatively charged shell. Hence its inner
of quanta formed by virtual pairs (c+,c-) of null distribution ( + -
p and s ) of electric charges
net energy, which could eventuality constitute should evidence a splitting into these two
diverse populations with different aenergetic oppositely charged orbitals. Instead its quark
structural quantum states. Particles may then be structure should manifest, such as for the proton,
regarded as proceeding from vacuum quanta three fractional electric charges whose
which would have acquired energy through distribution should not fundamentally differ from
structural disequilibrium. the proton one and from which the subdivision
into core and shell is not implied.
VIII. CONCLUSION
* Still another way to track back the two
Let us review some of the most relevant features conceptions could stand on collision experiments
of the unitary orbital theory and contrast a few of on the deuteron. Its orbital conception predicts
them with the quark equivalencies: two positively charged cores being nothing else
but two protons and a shell wrapping both of
* The presented alternative orbital conception of them, while the quark structure should manifest
elementary particles leads to a unitary conception six punctual objects confined into two cores.
of them and of their diverse interactions. It is
based on a single fundamental corpuscle with a * An important application of the orbital
dual nature c+ and c-. conception applied to the neutron stands on the
assumption of its dual structure, composed of a
* The particle's orbital structure, embodied by the core and a shell. This simple hypothesis leads to a
fundamental corpuscle, is an intrinsic novel and straightforward qualitative
characteristic and the corpuscle cannot be free of understanding of nuclear forces and the nucleus
it. Each orbital quantum state defines a specific structure, cohesion and stability.
elementary particle and all its properties.
* The neutron shell is unstable in the free state
* Furthermore, this approach also leads to the
conceptual unification of the four interactions. and its low energy of only 1.29 MeV makes it
The two short-range interactions derive from the quite weak. However, it is considered to be very
close contact of the particles orbital structure. reactive, having a high trend to incorporate a
The two long range interactions arise from the second proton in its core. In this state the shell

19


Physics Essays Vol.12, no.2, 1999



becomes quite strong and stable. It may (1) The electron is structured by a single
incorporate a third proton leading to the helion corpuscular carrier c- with a negative unitary
2H3 which is also stable. Thus, a shell composed charge.
by a single corpuscular carrier can confine from
one to three protons, leading to the three isotones: (2) The proton is structured by a single
the neutron, the deuteron and the helion 2H3. corpuscular carrier c+ with positive unitary
charge.
* To built up heavier nuclei the shell must
incorporate more than one carrier. So, a shell (3) The neutron is predicted to have a composite
with two carriers can confine up to seven structure which can be regarded as generated by
protons. The progressive increase of the shell the concentric superposition of an electron and a
carrier content allows a growing proton core. proton, leading to a new structure, comprising a
However the process presents a threshold which core and a shell. The core is positively charged
succeeds when the repulsive forces inner to the and constituted by the proton structural orbital
core or to the shell finally dominate over the (938,26 MeV) which is preserved. The shell is
attractive forces between them. At present the formed by a negatively charged orbital with an
heaviest nuclide obtained (Z=111 and A=272) has energy of +1,29 MeV, deriving from the electron
thus, in the orbital frame, a core with 272 protons structuring orbital (0.51 MeV) which is not
bonded by a shell with 161 carriers. preserved due to its low energy.

* The presence of neutrons in the nucleus is (4) The Deuteron structure is formed by two
indispensable since it constitutes the sole source protons and a wrapping cohesive shell, negatively
of nuclear forces through the delivery of its shell. charged with an energy of -1,00 MeV.
The orbital theory applied to nuclides provides a
straightforward understanding of their behavior as (5) The Helion 3 is structured by a three proton
isotones, isobars, and isotopes. Such a simple core and a shell, negatively charged and with an
assumption as to confer a shell to the neutron energy of -6,42 MeV.
allows to reinterpret the complete nuclear field.
(6) The Triton is structured by a three proton
* A development (in accordance with quantum core and a shell doubly negatively charged and
field theory, in particular with the fundamentals with an energy of -5,89 MeV.
of quantum electrodynamics) has been proposed
in which the concept of virtual neutral particles
with null net energy made by (c+,c-) pairs is (7) As a generalization, the nuclear neutron is
introduced as well as the hypothesis that they predicted to be dissociated into its two structural
form a main background leading to a virtual components and consequently the nuclear
Universe corresponding to free space. structure to be solely composed of protons bound
Elementary particles would represent energetic together by a shell multi-negatively charged,
states extracted from the virtual ones and they whose cohesive energy derives from the
would form a secondary foreground difference between the mass of the nucleus and
corresponding to the manifested Universe. the mass of its proton core.

* The composition asymmetry of the Universe, (8) The proposed photon structure is formed by
which is solely made of matter (i.e. without two oppositely charged structural carriers and
antimatter), takes a novel look through the orbital can be broken into its components, which in the
conception by establishing a symmetry at the free state restructure as positron and electron
corpuscular level and by introducing the (Let us remind that the Standard Model has
asymmetry at the level of the particles structural neither a structure for the photon nor for leptons).
orbital. Let us quote novel experimental recent results
Finally, to sum up let us stress that the Orbital about the rupture of (real) photons into a positron
Conception of Elementary Particles leads to very and an electron (27), data which are in perfect
concrete predictions in regard to their structure predictive agreement with the proposed structure
and interactions, which could be experimentally of the photon (c+,c-) whose components take the
checked. positron (c+) and the electron (c-) structural state
when free.

20


Physics Essays Vol.12, no.2, 1999



Since the proposed structure of the (real) photon (7) A. Faessler, Progress In Particle and
is previous to these experimental results it can be Nuclear Physics, vol.37, Pergamon (1996)
regarded as a strong support to the prediction
made about its structure. Furthermore, let us (8) P. Langacker, Precision Tests on the
stress that the production of a e+,e- pair in the Standard Electroweak Model, World Scientific
collision of two real photons was first considered (1995)
by Breit and Wheeler (28) who calculated the
reaction cross section to be of the order of r 2
o , (9) R. Hofstadter, Nuclear and Nucleon
where ro is the electron classical radius. This Structure, Frontiers in Physics (1963)
value is the one attributed to the classical radius
of the photon, electron and positron in their orbital (10) B.L. Cohen, Concepts of Nuclear Physics,
conception, considered to be the larger radius an Mc Graw (1971)
elementary particle can have. The fact that the
reaction cross section depends precisely on ro (11) J.M. Pearson, Nuclear Physics: Energy
brings another strong support to the photon and and Matter, Adam Hilger Ltd. (1986)
electron proposed orbital structure.
(12) I.J.D MacGregor, A.T. Doyle,
Predictions (3) and (7) have already got a Nuclear and
remarkable backing from the experimental data Particle Physics, Glasgow Proceedings
of references (24) and (27). Confrontation with (March 1993), Institute of Physics Conference
Series 183
experiments is currently in development (29).
(13) K. Heyde, Basic Ideas and Conception in
References Nuclear Physics, Institute of Physics Publishing
(1994)
(1) G. Sardin, Unitary Orbital Conception of (14) P.E. Hodgson,
Elementary Particles and their Interactions, The Nucleon Optical
N. Segroeg Ed., ISBN: 84-605-8006-7 (1998 ) Model, World Scientific (1994)
(2) This article has been written through out the (15) F. Yang, J.H. Hamilton, Modern Atomic
year 1996. However, the grounds of the orbital and Nuclear Physics, Mac Graw-Hill (1996)
conception of elementary particles had been
developed in 1967 while the author was a (16) X.W. Pan, D.H. Freng, M. Vallieres,
graduate student at Syracuse University (N.Y.). Contemporary Nuclear Shell Models,
The first type written manuscript is dated on Springer-Verlag (1997)
5/5/1967 and addressed to a professor. However,
at that time the concepts proposed have not been (17) D.R. Lide and H.P.R. Frederike, Summary
taken into account in view of the rising of the Tables of Particle Properties, Section 11-1,
quark model. After a long period outside CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics,
professional physics, from 1970 to 1984, the CRC Press (1996)
author has retaken them on 1995 in spite of the
meanwhile dogmatic settlement of the Standard (18) D.R. Lide and H.P.R. Frederike, Table of
Model. Isotopes, section 11-38, CRC Handbook of
Chemistry and Physics, CRC Press (1996)
(3) P. Marmier, E. Sheldon, Physics of Nuclei
and Particles (I and II), Academic Press (1969) (19) J.H. Schwarz, Elementary Particles and
the Universe: Essays in Honor of Murray
(4) D. Griffiths, Introduction to Elementary Gell-Mann, Cambridge University Press (1991)
Particles, John Wiley & Sons (1987) (20) F. Lenz, H. Griesshammer, D. Stoll,
(5) G.D. Coughlan, J.E. Dodd, The Ideas of Lectures on QCD, Springer-Verlag (1997)
Particles Physics: An Introduction for
Scientists, Cambridge University Press (1991) (21) E. Leader, E. Predazzi, An Introduction to
Gauge Theories and Modern Particle Physics,
6) K.J. Peach, L.L.J. Vick, High Energy Vol.1: Electroweak Interactions, The "New
Phenomenology, Scottish Universities Summer Particles" and the Parton Model, Cambridge
School in Physics, NATO Advanced Study University Press (1995)
Institute (1994)

21


Physics Essays Vol.12, no.2, 1999



(22) Observation of Events with very High
Q-squared in ep Collisions at HERA, Desy
Preprint No 97-024 (Feb. 1997)

(23) Comparison of ZEUS Data with Standard
Model Predictions for e+p  e+X Scattering
at High x and Q-squared, DESY Preprint No
97-025 (Feb.1997)

(24) R. Eisberg and R. Resnick, Quantum
Physics, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (1975) p.688,
fig. 17-17

(25) H.A. Enge, Introduction to Nuclear
Physics, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company,
Inc. (1966) p.9

(26) A. Pickering, Constructing Quarks: A
Social History of Particle Physics, University
of Chicago Press, 1984)

(27) D.L. Burke et al., Positron Production in
Multiphoton Light-by-Light Scattering,
Physical Review Letters, 79, 9 (1 sept. 1997)

(28) G. Breit and J.A. Wheeler, Physical Review
46, 1087 (1934)

(29) G. Sardin, Unitary Orbital Structure of
Elementary Particles: www.sardin.com

(*) E-mail: gsardin@intercom.es

N.B: This article was sent to the international
peer review Physics Essays
(www.physicsessays.com) on April 14, 1997.





22



