SOM Q&A

Q. Who are you?

Phil Fraley. I was a student of Prof. K. N. Rao at Ohio State.

Q. What are you currently working on?

Carbon. Each alpha-alpha bond has 2.4 MeV binding. There are 10 antibonds (p+ p+ or p- p-) and six bonds (p+ p-). There are the following considerations:

The antibonds have greater distances.

The 15 MeV per alpha of kinectic energy is replaced by 3 MeV per alpha-alpha bond in carbon (a gain in binding of 12 Mev per alpha)

The component of force along the alpha-alpha line is less for antibonds

The is a blocking of p+ p+ by p-. This blocking idea came originally from the helion model and was reinforced by the reworking of the alpha model with blocking.

We know that a single alpha-alpha bond in Be-8 has slightly positive binding energy (BE), so that a slight repositioning of nucleons due to the symmetry of carbon or oxygen is all it takes for the BE to go negative.

Q. What is SOM?

SOM is the acronym for Spin-Only Model. The spin refers to the spin of quark-like spinors (and antispinors) which are moving (translating) and turning inside protons and electrons.

Q. What's the difference between a spinor and antispinor?

A spinor, called a partic in SOM, moves in the direction of spin (at velocity c) and the antispinor moves in the opposite direction.

Q. What describes how spinors move?

What I call Equation (1) of three basic equations I use. It describes the potential between any two spinors. Unit-wise, it is in the same form as the Compton wavelength equation which is Equation (2). Generally, r is changing much more slowly than Δv and one can average over random Δv's to get values for the scale of the potential.

Q. What is charge?

In SOM, charge is due to the motion of electrons. Hydrogen example: at any instant an electron is moving on a circle of 51000 fm at velocity c/137. Since the motions inside the proton are at c and in random directions, they average to zero, leaving an average Δv of c/137 and the Eqn (1) potential is h_bar c/(137 r)

Q. What about magnetic interactions?

Again, an example: if a proton is in the center of a 1 meter radius loop of wire carrying 1 ampere current then adding the Eqn (1) Δv's between the spinor in the electron and the ones in the proton gives the value of the proton magnetic moment when comparing the result with the classical EM result.

Q. And Maxwell's equations?

The above are just hints that Maxwell's equations are related to Eqn (1). I've worked mostly on nuclear forces.

Q. What about Standard Theory (ST) and QM?

Standard Theory and QM are excellent theories in their own regimes. Neither have simpler underlying assumptions that explain them. They both assume EM (Maxwell's equations) and relativity without any underlying hints as to their origin.

My proposal is that transient particles of high-energy physics are caused by the same mechanisms as nuclear forces (SOM and Eqn (1)) and that we won't be able to understand ST until we first understand (simpler?) nuclear forces. 1/3 & 2/3 charges and isospin are artifacts due to the hidden soe+ (and soe- in transient cases).

SOM is a quantum theory. Spinors (and antispinors) are hidden in protons and other particles.In the solution of small nuclei, there is a rule similar to Bohr's rule that seems to apply to two or more nuclei rotating about each other. I call it Phil's rule and instead of the angular momentum equaling one as in Bohr's rule, it equals √2, implying in the case of 2 nucleons that the component of each in an instanteous orbit is √2/2. Many of these cases, as is the case for n=1 hydrogen electron, have an average angular momentum of zero. So the planes of orbits in the L=0 case are randomly changing.

Q. Where can I read more?

The original 1989 128-page "Physics From a Different Point of View" is available only as a paper copy. I will send it to anyone who wants to pay the copying and mailing costs: contact

fraley REMOVE SPAM art at-sign comcast dot net

XXXXXXXXX@XXXXXXX.XXX (remove spaces and "REMOVE SPAM", substitute for at-sign and dot)

I will also send an electronic copy or internet reference to "Nuclear Innards", a 1995 update.

From 1995 to 1998, I posted a lot on discussion group new-theories, including "Nuclear Innards", and the posts can be googled for (click on groups). Include jart epix, key dialup names, in the search.

Q. What is the third equation?

   r = r₀ A^1/3      (3)

r₀ from older books had been 1.07 to 1.3 fm,with a shell thickness of about 0.55 fm. Then N. D. Cook published "Models of the Atomic Nucleus" in 2006 which shows r₀ can be as low as 0.85 fm. With a lower r₀, and the addition of Phil's rule, SOM small nuclei model calculations became simpler.

Q. What about relativity?

First mass. Mass is given by Eqn (2). For a single spinor proton, this gives r_p = 0.21 fm. When the energy is shared by 3 spinors, the result is 0.63 fm. SOM assumes this is due to sums of individual pairs of Eqn (1). I can show the general nature of turning the spinors back to the center of mass, but I can't do the sums (because the spinors are in protons, electrons and other particles that are distributed throughout the universe). However, I can do the relativistic mass increases for low v/c values and for midrange v/c values for a specific model of the proton: a Gaussian model.

If one sums the random Δv's (Eqn (1)) between spinors moving at relative velocity v, the result is pi/2 times the standard relativity result for v/c < 0.3. But if mass is random pairs of spinors and antispinors interacting then the component of each along v is cos θ, θ being the angle between v and the line between a given pair. The average of cos θ is 2/pi and the standard result is obtained. Low-velocity relativity in turn supports the idea that mass is a sum over all spinor/antispinor pairs.

For midrange, v/c = 0.30 to 0.95, I used the Gaussian proton model and found the (perceived) relativistic increase in mass in that range is caused by the finite velocity (c) of the spinors inside the proton. As the velocity increases, the spinors have less time to sample the accelerating field over the full volume of the proton. This was modeled as cutting off the tail of the Gaussian distribution more and more (in the velocity direction) as the velocity increased. So the mass doesn't really increase, the sampling spinors don't have time to pick up all the field acceleration.

I don't have a model for v/c > 0.95.

Q. What is a Gaussian proton?

This is discussed in gaussianproton.html which I could send to you. It's statistical. A sample of a spinor/antispinor radius is picked from a Gaussian distribution and the vector components of the velocity with magnitude c are picked from a uniform distribution. The Gaussian proton is used in the proton midrange acceleration calculation above and in calculating the nuclear potential in many small nucleon configurations.

Overlap in distributions, for instance: p+ p-, causes a reduction in the potential and the potential reverses at about 1 fm distance.

Q. What is gravity?

This is not an exact answer, just insight from an SOM point-of-view.

There are three interrelated items:

(1) Gravity is an unbalance due to the fact that electrons are more free to move than protons

(2) There is an (equivalent) unbalance between positive and negative charge Δe = |e⁺ - e^-| = 1.5154 10^-42 coulombs, obtained by equating G m_p² = 9 10⁹Δ²

(3) Since mass is the sum over all angles of 'rays' coming from Eqn (1), then gravity could be the 'scattering' of part of the rays by one body before they get to the other body, and vice versa. Dan McCoin's UNIKEF theory does approximately this. Unfortunately, his web site is gone. I didn't get a copy of his html's and the backup site is missing some drawings. I could recreate the essence of his sums from my notebooks if anyone is interested, as I tried to check them with my own calculations.

UNIKEF backup:

http://web.archive.org/web/20060218131552/unikef-gravity.com/UniKV2/page1.htm

One would assume an equivalence between mass effects and charge effects

Q. What is light?

Let's track a single photon. It's emitted from a QM object, nuclei, atom or molecule, with an angular momentum change of ћ. It travels in a straight line until distance ct (c=speed, t=time) later, the photon is absorbed by a QM allowed transition.In SOM, the reason for speed c is that the 'matrix of protons' that were and are interacting with the original transition can only pass the information in the matrix at speed c because that is the speed of the spinors inside the protons; .i.e, the matrix spinors act as (distributed) small flywheels in the system. (the matrix is made of electrons, antiprotons and soe's as well, but the majority are protons.)

Think of the matrix around the path as a bunch of 'light bulbs' that are lit brightest near the path. The brightness represents the energy and angular momentum probabilities of the photon as stored temporarily in the matrix and passed along the chain.

Q. How fast is the interaction described by Eqn (1)?

Probably much faster than the speed of light, but there's no way to tell from my present understanding of SOM.

Q. So, there's a lot of circumstantial evidence that Eqn (1), combined with a few other SOM models, explains mass energies, small nucleus energies and simple versions of electromagnetic energies. Is that it?

With some relativity thrown in, yes.