New Nuclear Model: Difference between revisions

Scientific Paper
Title	New Nuclear Model
Read in full	Link to paper
Author(s)	Wladimir Guglinski
Keywords	Nuclear Model
Pages	109-122

← Older edit

Latest revision as of 12:02, 21 July 2026

Read the full paper here

Abstract

In the current Nuclear Physics several nuclear models were adopted. Each model is applied for explaining a specific nuclear property. Although a model is able to explain a nuclear phenomenon (or a property of the nuclei), nevertheless, it is unable to explain several other phenomena and it is incompatible with other several properties of the nuclei. There is among the nuclear physicists the belief that it is impossible to have a unique model able to explain all the nuclear properties, and that any attempt for finding such a unique model is a waste of time. However, it is hard to believe that the Nature can use several different models for yielding the phenomena. In addition, what is the worst: as the models of the current nuclear theory are incompatible among themselves, how could the Nature operate by using incompatible models? Herein it is proposed a new nuclear model, which is UNIQUE, named the Hexagonal Floors Model. Through many posterior papers, we will show that such a model is compatible with the whole nuclear properties, and it is able to explain all the nuclear phenomena.

Overview

This is the ninth paper in Wladimir Guglinski's book-length sequence on nuclear structure, and it introduces the geometry on which the rest of the sequence is built: the Hexagonal Floors Model. Guglinski's starting complaint is methodological rather than technical. Orthodox nuclear physics keeps a stable of mutually incompatible pictures — the liquid drop model for masses and binding energies, the shell model for magic numbers, the collective model for deformation — and applies whichever one fits the property under discussion. He regards this as an admission of defeat, and asks the question a realist has to ask: "how could the Nature operate by using incompatible models?" Since nature evidently does only one thing, one model must exist, and if it exists it can be found.

The model he proposes is built from three unorthodox ingredients. First, a neutron is not Yukawa's meson-exchange object but a proton with an electron circulating about it — a picture Guglinski says he adopted in 1991 and found confirmed by the roughly ten-minute free-neutron lifetime, which he reads as the time the captive electron takes to escape. Second, both proton and electron carry two nested fields: a principal field Sp induced by the rotation of the particle's body-ring, and a secondary field Sn induced by the rotation of the principal field. The secondary field is made of ether — a flux of gravitons together with positive electric particles, the latter responsible for Coulombic interaction and the former for the non-Coulombic interaction Guglinski associates with Borghi's experiments and with the "Nuclear Active Environment" of cold fusion research. Third, every nucleus with Z > 2 is built around a central 2He4 whose flux captures deuterons (1H2) into hexagonal layers stacked parallel to one another. The paper is explicit that in this version the flux is treated as magnetic, and equally explicit that this is provisional: the author states that magnetic flux cannot make the model coherent and that a later paper replaces it with a gravitational flux.

The argument

Why the received models are held to fail

Guglinski opens the technical case against the liquid drop model with a geometric objection. The semi-empirical mass formula assigns a volume term proportional to A and a surface term proportional to A^2/3, both of which presuppose a radius growing as A^1/3. But measured nuclear radii do not behave that way: he cites light nuclei at about 10 fermi and heavy nuclei at about 9 fermi, so the radius is flat or slightly falling while A rises. Something else must be growing with A, and his candidate is the superposed density of the Sn(p) and Sn(e) fields surrounding the nucleus — an ether atmosphere that thickens as nucleons are added even though the nuclear body does not swell.

Against the Mayer–Jensen shell model he raises an internal inconsistency in how magic numbers are selected. From Z = 28 upward, the magic closure is taken at the lower member of a spin-orbit doublet — 1g_9/2 rather than 1g_7/2, which makes 50Sn come out magic. But at Z = 8 and Z = 20 the upper member is used instead. Applied consistently, he argues, the lower-level rule would make 6C and 14Si magic (they are not) and would deny magicity to 8O and 20Ca (which are). His conclusion is that the shell model's assignment of magic numbers is fitted after the fact rather than predicted.

The hexagonal floors

The geometry follows from taking oxygen as the first magic number above helium. A central 2He4 surrounded by six deuterons forms a hexagon, so 8O16 is the first closed floor, and heavier nuclei are stacks of such floors — 14Si28 with two floors, 20Ca40 with three, 26Fe52 with four, 28Ni56 with an anomalous fifth, 50Sn as 2He4 + 8 floors, 82Pb as 2He4 + 13 floors + 2H2. Stability is governed not by floor count alone but by spin alignment between adjacent floors. Where an even number of complete floors leaves the spins of successive layers aligned, two matched nucleons "dispute a same quantum status", the last-neutron binding energy falls, and the nucleus is not magic — which is how he disqualifies 14Si28 and 26Fe52. Odd floor counts break the alignment, giving 20Ca40 its magicity.

Guglinski is candid that this rule does not survive contact with the data. He lists the failures himself: 28Ni56 should not be magic on the floor-parity rule and is; 32Ge64 should be and is not (rescued by supposing added deuterons migrate to the two ends of the nucleus); Z = 44 and Z = 56 should be magic and are not; 50Sn with eight floors should not be and is; 82Pb likewise fails. His own summary is that "the quantity of anomalies is greater than the normal cases", and he attributes the whole failure to the provisional use of a magnetic rather than gravitational flux.

Binding energy by field perforation

The most concrete part of the paper is a calculational scheme that bypasses the mass formula entirely. Where the liquid drop model yields a nuclear mass M_Z,A from which a binding energy must be extracted by mass difference, Guglinski computes the binding energy directly as the work needed to assemble nucleons, split into three terms:

Er — the energy to overcome Coulombic repulsion in bringing a proton from infinity, Er = k₀q²/r. At the quoted proton radius of 10⁻¹⁵ m this gives 2.304 × 10⁻¹³ J = 1.44 MeV per proton pair.
Ed — the energy to perforate the secondary fields, i.e. to bring Sn(p) and Sn(e) into concentric overlap.
Em — the energy to match the principal fields Sp(p) of two protons, required only for 1H3, 2He3 and 2He4.

The two unknowns are calibrated from experiment. The deuteron requires four fields to be drilled and has a binding energy of 2.22 MeV, with Er = Em = 0, giving Ed₁ = 2.22/4 = 0.555 MeV per field. Then 2He3, formed as 1H2 + 1H1, drills six fields (3.33 MeV) and pays Er = 1.44 MeV, totalling 4.77 MeV against an empirical 7.72 MeV; the 2.95 MeV shortfall is identified as Em per proton. For nuclei assembled from (Z,A) + 1H2 a different perforation cost applies, calibrated separately for odd and even Z: from 3Li6 (32.00 MeV, 36 fields, Er = 2.88 MeV) he gets Ed_2(odd) = 0.8089 MeV per field, and from 4Be8 (56.5 MeV, 54 fields, Er = 4.32 MeV) he gets Ed_2(pair) = 0.9663 MeV per field.

Results

With those three constants the paper computes binding energies (theory versus experiment, MeV): 1H3, 9.61 vs 8.47; 2He4, 27.68 vs 28.30; 5B10, 64.00 vs 64.75; 6C12, 94.17 vs 92.20; 7N14, 96.00 vs 104.66; 8O16, 131.83 vs 127.62. He also computes the two anomalously high separation energies of helium-4 that he says orthodox theory leaves unexplained: last-proton Ep = 19.95 MeV against an empirical 19.8, and last-neutron En = 21.79 MeV against 20.60. A stated rule distinguishes packing from crushing — extracting a neutron from 2He4 uses Ed_2(odd) because that neutron was packed in 1H2 + 1H2 → 2He4, while extracting a proton uses Ed_2(pair). He closes by noting that both Ed₂ values should really decrease with A, mirroring the surface term, and suggests a correction factor Ed_2(odd) = 0.8089·f(A) with 0 < f(A) ≤ 1.

Assessment

What is genuinely attractive here is the demand behind the paper. The insistence that nature cannot be running four mutually inconsistent models at once is a legitimate realist objection to the pedagogical patchwork of nuclear physics, and the specific criticism of Mayer–Jensen magic-number selection — that the lower doublet member is chosen above Z = 28 and the upper one below it — is a real asymmetry in the standard presentation rather than an invented one. The observation that measured nuclear radii do not track A^1/3 as cleanly as the surface term assumes is likewise a fair point to press. And the perforation calculation has an honest structure: three parameters fixed from three light nuclei, then applied without further adjustment, with the discrepancies printed rather than hidden. Guglinski's willingness to list every case where his own floor-parity rule fails is more candour than such papers usually contain.

The difficulties are correspondingly severe, and several are internal. The hexagonal geometry, which is the paper's title claim, does not work: by the author's own tally it misassigns more magic numbers than it gets right, and the repairs offered — an "anomalous structure" for 28Ni56, migration of deuterons "to the two ends" for 32Ge64 — are stipulated to fit the data rather than derived from the model. Promising that a later paper's gravitational flux will fix all of it is not an argument available to this paper.

The binding-energy scheme is weaker than its numerical agreement suggests. It is not a prediction from the hexagonal structure at all: the field-counting tables (4 fields for 1H2, 18 for 2He4, 126 for 8O16) follow a simple bodies-times-fields arithmetic that never invokes the floors, so the two halves of the paper are effectively independent. With three constants fitted to 1H2, 2He3, 3Li6 and 4Be8, the agreement for 5B10 and 2He4 is modest evidence, and the scheme's failures are not small: 7N14 comes out 96.00 against 104.66, an 8 per cent error in the wrong direction, and the errors do not even share a sign — 6C12 and 8O16 are overestimates while 7N14 and 2He4 are underestimates, which no single monotonic correction f(A) can absorb. The proposed correction is in any case introduced only after the numbers fail to land.

More fundamentally, the physical objects doing the work — the secondary ether fields Sn(p) and Sn(e), the "perforation" of one field by another, the graviton flux — are asserted, not defined. No field equation, no radial profile, no coupling constant is given, so "0.555 MeV per field" is a fitted number attached to an undefined operation, and the counting of "fields drilled" has no independent justification. The electron-in-the-neutron picture, meanwhile, faces the standard objection that a electron confined to nuclear dimensions would by the uncertainty principle carry momentum far in excess of anything the nucleus can bind, and would also give the nucleus the wrong spin statistics — the nitrogen-14 spin problem that killed the proton–electron nucleus in the 1930s. The paper does not engage either objection here, though the later papers in the series claim to. Finally, the rejection of Yukawa's exchange picture rests on an analogy about tennis players and "the laws of the ethics" rather than on any quantitative failure of meson exchange, and analogy of that kind cannot carry the weight placed on it.

Judged on its own terms, then, the paper succeeds as a statement of programme and fails as a demonstration. It is best read as the opening chapter of Guglinski's larger construction rather than as a self-contained result.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Infobox paper
 | title = New Nuclear Model
+| url = [http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_4463.pdf Link to paper]
 | author = [[Wladimir Guglinski]]
 | keywords = [[Nuclear Model]]
-| journal = [[None]]
 | pages = 109-122
 }}
+'''Read the full paper''' [http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_4463.pdf here]
 ==Abstract==
 In the current Nuclear Physics several nuclear models were adopted. Each model is applied for explaining a specific nuclear property. Although a model is able to explain a nuclear phenomenon (or a property of the nuclei), nevertheless, it is unable to explain several other phenomena and it is incompatible with other several properties of the nuclei. There is among the nuclear physicists the belief that it is impossible to have a unique model able to explain all the nuclear properties, and that any attempt for finding such a unique model is a waste of time. However, it is hard to believe that the Nature can use several different models for yielding the phenomena. In addition, what is the worst: as the models of the current nuclear theory are incompatible among themselves, how could the Nature operate by using incompatible models? Herein it is proposed a new nuclear model, which is UNIQUE, named the Hexagonal Floors Model. Through many posterior papers, we will show that such a model is compatible with the whole nuclear properties, and it is able to explain all the nuclear phenomena.
+==Overview==
+This is the ninth paper in Wladimir Guglinski's book-length sequence on nuclear structure, and it introduces the geometry on which the rest of the sequence is built: the ''Hexagonal Floors Model''. Guglinski's starting complaint is methodological rather than technical. Orthodox nuclear physics keeps a stable of mutually incompatible pictures — the liquid drop model for masses and binding energies, the shell model for magic numbers, the collective model for deformation — and applies whichever one fits the property under discussion. He regards this as an admission of defeat, and asks the question a realist has to ask: "how could the Nature operate by using incompatible models?" Since nature evidently does only one thing, one model must exist, and if it exists it can be found.
+The model he proposes is built from three unorthodox ingredients. First, a neutron is not Yukawa's meson-exchange object but a proton with an electron circulating about it — a picture Guglinski says he adopted in 1991 and found confirmed by the roughly ten-minute free-neutron lifetime, which he reads as the time the captive [[Electron|electron]] takes to escape. Second, both [[Proton|proton]] and electron carry two nested fields: a ''principal'' field Sp induced by the rotation of the particle's body-ring, and a ''secondary'' field Sn induced by the rotation of the principal field. The secondary field is made of [[Aether|ether]] — a flux of gravitons together with positive electric particles, the latter responsible for Coulombic interaction and the former for the non-Coulombic interaction Guglinski associates with Borghi's experiments and with the "Nuclear Active Environment" of [[Cold Fusion|cold fusion]] research. Third, every nucleus with ''Z'' > 2 is built around a central 2He4 whose flux captures deuterons (1H2) into hexagonal layers stacked parallel to one another. The paper is explicit that in this version the flux is treated as magnetic, and equally explicit that this is provisional: the author states that magnetic flux cannot make the model coherent and that a later paper replaces it with a gravitational flux.
+==The argument==
+===Why the received models are held to fail===
+Guglinski opens the technical case against the liquid drop model with a geometric objection. The semi-empirical mass formula assigns a volume term proportional to ''A'' and a surface term proportional to ''A''<sup>2/3</sup>, both of which presuppose a radius growing as ''A''<sup>1/3</sup>. But measured nuclear radii do not behave that way: he cites light nuclei at about 10 fermi and heavy nuclei at about 9 fermi, so the radius is flat or slightly falling while ''A'' rises. Something else must be growing with ''A'', and his candidate is the superposed density of the Sn(p) and Sn(e) fields surrounding the nucleus — an ether atmosphere that thickens as nucleons are added even though the nuclear body does not swell.
+Against the Mayer–Jensen shell model he raises an internal inconsistency in how magic numbers are selected. From ''Z'' = 28 upward, the magic closure is taken at the ''lower'' member of a spin-orbit doublet — 1g<sub>9/2</sub> rather than 1g<sub>7/2</sub>, which makes 50Sn come out magic. But at ''Z'' = 8 and ''Z'' = 20 the ''upper'' member is used instead. Applied consistently, he argues, the lower-level rule would make 6C and 14Si magic (they are not) and would deny magicity to 8O and 20Ca (which are). His conclusion is that the shell model's assignment of magic numbers is fitted after the fact rather than predicted.
+===The hexagonal floors===
+The geometry follows from taking oxygen as the first magic number above helium. A central 2He4 surrounded by six deuterons forms a hexagon, so 8O16 is the first closed floor, and heavier nuclei are stacks of such floors — 14Si28 with two floors, 20Ca40 with three, 26Fe52 with four, 28Ni56 with an anomalous fifth, 50Sn as 2He4 + 8 floors, 82Pb as 2He4 + 13 floors + 2H2. Stability is governed not by floor count alone but by spin alignment between adjacent floors. Where an even number of complete floors leaves the spins of successive layers aligned, two matched nucleons "dispute a same quantum status", the last-neutron binding energy falls, and the nucleus is not magic — which is how he disqualifies 14Si28 and 26Fe52. Odd floor counts break the alignment, giving 20Ca40 its magicity.
+Guglinski is candid that this rule does not survive contact with the data. He lists the failures himself: 28Ni56 should not be magic on the floor-parity rule and is; 32Ge64 should be and is not (rescued by supposing added deuterons migrate to the two ends of the nucleus); ''Z'' = 44 and ''Z'' = 56 should be magic and are not; 50Sn with eight floors should not be and is; 82Pb likewise fails. His own summary is that "the quantity of anomalies is greater than the normal cases", and he attributes the whole failure to the provisional use of a magnetic rather than gravitational flux.
+===Binding energy by field perforation===
+The most concrete part of the paper is a calculational scheme that bypasses the mass formula entirely. Where the liquid drop model yields a nuclear mass ''M''<sub>Z,A</sub> from which a binding energy must be extracted by mass difference, Guglinski computes the binding energy directly as the work needed to assemble nucleons, split into three terms:
+* '''Er''' — the energy to overcome Coulombic repulsion in bringing a proton from infinity, ''Er'' = ''k''<sub>0</sub>''q''<sup>2</sup>/''r''. At the quoted proton radius of 10<sup>−15</sup> m this gives 2.304 × 10<sup>−13</sup> J = 1.44 MeV per proton pair.
+* '''Ed''' — the energy to ''perforate'' the secondary fields, i.e. to bring Sn(p) and Sn(e) into concentric overlap.
+* '''Em''' — the energy to ''match'' the principal fields Sp(p) of two protons, required only for 1H3, 2He3 and 2He4.
+The two unknowns are calibrated from experiment. The deuteron requires four fields to be drilled and has a binding energy of 2.22 MeV, with ''Er'' = ''Em'' = 0, giving ''Ed''<sub>1</sub> = 2.22/4 = 0.555 MeV per field. Then 2He3, formed as 1H2 + 1H1, drills six fields (3.33 MeV) and pays ''Er'' = 1.44 MeV, totalling 4.77 MeV against an empirical 7.72 MeV; the 2.95 MeV shortfall is identified as ''Em'' per proton. For nuclei assembled from (''Z'',''A'') + 1H2 a different perforation cost applies, calibrated separately for odd and even ''Z'': from 3Li6 (32.00 MeV, 36 fields, ''Er'' = 2.88 MeV) he gets ''Ed''<sub>2(odd)</sub> = 0.8089 MeV per field, and from 4Be8 (56.5 MeV, 54 fields, ''Er'' = 4.32 MeV) he gets ''Ed''<sub>2(pair)</sub> = 0.9663 MeV per field.
+===Results===
+With those three constants the paper computes binding energies (theory versus experiment, MeV): 1H3, 9.61 vs 8.47; 2He4, 27.68 vs 28.30; 5B10, 64.00 vs 64.75; 6C12, 94.17 vs 92.20; 7N14, 96.00 vs 104.66; 8O16, 131.83 vs 127.62. He also computes the two anomalously high separation energies of helium-4 that he says orthodox theory leaves unexplained: last-proton ''Ep'' = 19.95 MeV against an empirical 19.8, and last-neutron ''En'' = 21.79 MeV against 20.60. A stated rule distinguishes packing from crushing — extracting a neutron from 2He4 uses ''Ed''<sub>2(odd)</sub> because that neutron was packed in 1H2 + 1H2 → 2He4, while extracting a proton uses ''Ed''<sub>2(pair)</sub>. He closes by noting that both ''Ed''<sub>2</sub> values should really decrease with ''A'', mirroring the surface term, and suggests a correction factor ''Ed''<sub>2(odd)</sub> = 0.8089·''f''(''A'') with 0 < ''f''(''A'') ≤ 1.
+==Assessment==
+What is genuinely attractive here is the demand behind the paper. The insistence that nature cannot be running four mutually inconsistent models at once is a legitimate realist objection to the pedagogical patchwork of nuclear physics, and the specific criticism of Mayer–Jensen magic-number selection — that the lower doublet member is chosen above ''Z'' = 28 and the upper one below it — is a real asymmetry in the standard presentation rather than an invented one. The observation that measured nuclear radii do not track ''A''<sup>1/3</sup> as cleanly as the surface term assumes is likewise a fair point to press. And the perforation calculation has an honest structure: three parameters fixed from three light nuclei, then applied without further adjustment, with the discrepancies printed rather than hidden. Guglinski's willingness to list every case where his own floor-parity rule fails is more candour than such papers usually contain.
+The difficulties are correspondingly severe, and several are internal. The hexagonal geometry, which is the paper's title claim, does not work: by the author's own tally it misassigns more magic numbers than it gets right, and the repairs offered — an "anomalous structure" for 28Ni56, migration of deuterons "to the two ends" for 32Ge64 — are stipulated to fit the data rather than derived from the model. Promising that a later paper's gravitational flux will fix all of it is not an argument available to this paper.
+The binding-energy scheme is weaker than its numerical agreement suggests. It is not a prediction from the hexagonal structure at all: the field-counting tables (4 fields for 1H2, 18 for 2He4, 126 for 8O16) follow a simple bodies-times-fields arithmetic that never invokes the floors, so the two halves of the paper are effectively independent. With three constants fitted to 1H2, 2He3, 3Li6 and 4Be8, the agreement for 5B10 and 2He4 is modest evidence, and the scheme's failures are not small: 7N14 comes out 96.00 against 104.66, an 8 per cent error in the wrong direction, and the errors do not even share a sign — 6C12 and 8O16 are overestimates while 7N14 and 2He4 are underestimates, which no single monotonic correction ''f''(''A'') can absorb. The proposed correction is in any case introduced only after the numbers fail to land.
+More fundamentally, the physical objects doing the work — the secondary ether fields Sn(p) and Sn(e), the "perforation" of one field by another, the graviton flux — are asserted, not defined. No field equation, no radial profile, no coupling constant is given, so "0.555 MeV per field" is a fitted number attached to an undefined operation, and the counting of "fields drilled" has no independent justification. The electron-in-the-neutron picture, meanwhile, faces the standard objection that a [[Electron|electron]] confined to nuclear dimensions would by the [[Uncertainty Principle|uncertainty principle]] carry momentum far in excess of anything the nucleus can bind, and would also give the nucleus the wrong [[Spin|spin]] statistics — the nitrogen-14 spin problem that killed the proton–electron nucleus in the 1930s. The paper does not engage either objection here, though the later papers in the series claim to. Finally, the rejection of Yukawa's exchange picture rests on an analogy about tennis players and "the laws of the ethics" rather than on any quantitative failure of meson exchange, and analogy of that kind cannot carry the weight placed on it.
+Judged on its own terms, then, the paper succeeds as a statement of programme and fails as a demonstration. It is best read as the opening chapter of Guglinski's larger construction rather than as a self-contained result.
+==See also==
+* [[Wladimir Guglinski]]
+* [[Proton]]
+* [[Neutron]]
+* [[Electron]]
+* [[Aether]]
+* [[Cold Fusion]]
+* [[Spin]]
 [[Category:Scientific Paper|new nuclear model]]
+[[Category:Nuclear Structure]]
+[[Category:Atomic Structure]]
+[[Category:Aether]]
+[[Category:Cold Fusion]]