Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Aethelstan on 05/12/2013 19:51:09

I know that the strong nuclear force is 36 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity, but could they be the same fundamental force? My thinking is that gravity on the scale of femtometers could obey the law of 1/r^19 (20 dimensions of space, 17 of which are too small to measure) which obeys the rules of how the strong nuclear force falls of significantly over minute distances. Once r is more than a few femtometers we are out of the realms of the tiny, curled up dimensions and into the three normal dimensions of space and the power of attraction is 36 orders of magnitude smaller.
I am a layman, but I do wish to study physics. Please can you explain to me why this obvious (to me) solution is wrong? I am sure if it were this simple, it would have been proven a long time ago.

IIRC electrons are affected by gravity, but not by the strong nuclear force.

I did think about that and I searched for how gravity affected electrons. The gist of what I read (like I say, I am a layman) was the gravitational effect on something with such miniscule mass was not measurable.

But we can measure gravitational lensing or the gravitational redshift which is the effect of gravity on photons. This means photons are affected by gravity, but not by the strong force.

I did think about that and I searched for how gravity affected electrons. The gist of what I read (like I say, I am a layman) was the gravitational effect on something with such miniscule mass was not measurable.
I take issue with such an assertion. Where did you read such a thing?
Consider the gravitational force between a typical object and the earth. About 1/2000 of the masses is in their electrons. If the electrons in the object and the earth did not exert gravitational forces on each other, the weight of the object would be smaller by about 1/2000. We can certainly detect that!

20 dimensions of space, 17 of which are too small to measure
This is similar to the concepts of String Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory#Number_of_dimensions) and MTheory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mtheory#Last_step).
However, these theories are neither simple nor obvious. They are very general, having many adjustable parameters. It is quite possible that these theories may describe some aspects of some universe, but it is not obvious which parameter values (if any) might describe our universe.
Regardless of how gravity and the strong nuclear force behave at the scale of these theoretical strings, or may have behaved in the distant past or far future, today they behave quite differently at the scales that humans can observe. The Strong Nuclear Force has a range which barely exceeds the width of the nucleus of an atom. In contrast, the force of Gravity easily spans the distance between galaxies. This points to some fundamental differences in the way these forces are expressed.
I suggest that if you wish to study these theories in Physics, that you start by studying Mathematics, as these topics are based on some very complex mathematics.

20 dimensions of space, 17 of which are too small to measure
This is similar to the concepts of String Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory#Number_of_dimensions) and MTheory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mtheory#Last_step).
However, these theories are neither simple nor obvious. They are very general, having many adjustable parameters. It is quite possible that these theories may describe some aspects of some universe, but it is not obvious which parameter values (if any) might describe our universe.
Regardless of how gravity and the strong nuclear force behave at the scale of these theoretical strings, or may have behaved in the distant past or far future, today they behave quite differently at the scales that humans can observe. The Strong Nuclear Force has a range which barely exceeds the width of the nucleus of an atom. In contrast, the force of Gravity easily spans the distance between galaxies. This points to some fundamental differences in the way these forces are expressed.
I suggest that if you wish to study these theories in Physics, that you start by studying Mathematics, as these topics are based on some very complex mathematics.
Of interest on string theory is this site.
http://www.branebrain.com/
The video near the bottom shows some interesting work in seeing quatum effects on a macroscopic scale. The site develops a new theory of gravity under string theory.

Forces which attract between opposites cancel as the distance from equal numbers of opposites increases. However, I suspect (raw New Theory, not yet half baked) that the expansion of space might result in a very slight imbalance between those equal but opposite forces. Perhaps this could account for gravity.

.....Modified Gravitational Metrics
Nassim Haramein has a theory ; that a form of quantum spin divides gravity into different facets or expressions of force . This he folds with the fact that the density of the proton equates with that of a black hole . Definitely seems like a paradigm worth investigating .
P.M.
Ref : "The Connected Universe"

This he folds with the fact that the density of the proton equates with that of a black hole .
When was the density of a proton ever measured to be equal to that of a black hole? Existing physics would suggest otherwise, since the Schwarzschild radius of an object with a proton's mass is 2.5 x 10^{54} meters, whereas the proton's radius is only slightly less than 10^{15} meters.

.................Ask Nassim .
That's going to be my new favorite saying ! However , I believe it was density he addressed . At any rate , see above .
P.M.

I found a lot of objections to the OP fairly thin. I think I have one that puts it to rest: The strong force is actually repulsive inside about 0.9 fm, and if it were gravity increasing with inverse r^{19} it would attract all the harder.

.................Ask Nassim
I don't need to. He's wrong. A proton is not as dense as a black hole.

...............Past the barrier
I do believe that if enough force is applied , the nuclearattractive force will engage , and the protons will latch onto each other like Alabama ticks ! I like fusion too !
P.M.

...............Past the barrier
I do believe that if enough force is applied , the nuclearattractive force will engage , and the protons will latch onto each other like Alabama ticks ! I like fusion too !
P.M.
Of course, but that has nothing to do with gravity.

This he folds with the fact that the density of the proton equates with that of a black hole .
The Schwarzschild radius is not the same as the same as its radius. The density of a BH and an electron are meaningless.
No other force than gravity is a inertial force like the gravforce.
When was the density of a proton ever measured to be equal to that of a black hole? Existing physics would suggest otherwise, since the Schwarzschild radius of an object with a proton's mass is 2.5 x 10^{54} meters, whereas the proton's radius is only slightly less than 10^{15} meters.

gravity increasing with inverse r^{19}
Why isn't gravity increasing as inverse r^{2}?

gravity increasing with inverse r^{19}
Why isn't gravity increasing as inverse r^{2}?
per the OP

Multiple, competing aspects of the unigrav force (connectedness), combined with fieldenergy saturation at varying distances , equals different parameters for different subatomic systems .
As to the ProtonBlack Hole connection , either watch the documentary , OR ?...call Nassim !
P.M.

Multiple, competing aspects of the unigrav force (connectedness), combined with fieldenergy saturation at varying distances , equals different parameters for different subatomic systems .
Can you define these terms, please? Preferably using definitions that do not involve technobabble?
As to the ProtonBlack Hole connection , either watch the documentary , OR ?...call Nassim !
P.M.
I did find a clip of him talking here:
He says that if you model a pair of protons as two black holes, the gravitational force between them turns out to be equal to the strength of the strong force. To be fair, a pair of protonmass black holes could have an attractive force acting between them that was equal to what we call the strong force if they were sufficiently close together. The problem with this, however, is that the electrical repulsion between those charged black holes is going to increase at the exact same rate as the gravitational attraction is. So changing the distance between those black holes will actually have no affect on how strongly they attract or repel each other (and the repulsion will be much, much higher).
One could get around that problem if you posit that the inversesquare law ceases to operate for gravity and/or the electromagnetic force at extremely tiny distances, but evidence for this is currently lacking. Even if you did make a model where that was true, then it would need to explain why it doesn't work for many different particles. Electrons, muons and tau particles all have mass, so they should be able to bind together using the strong force if the strong force is a form of gravity. Yet they don't.
Then there are particle experiments that demonstrate the existence of gluon particles, which were predicted in advance in order to explain how the strong force operates. The strong force also has its own conservation laws that do not apply to gravity (hypercharge and color charge).

................Twisted Force
The electrons , etc. , respond to a different aspect of the differentiated unigrav (root) force . Think different electronshells (or onion layers) . Gravity being "root" doesn't mean it is strongest , just fundamental .
The difficulty with particle physics is that it doesn't manipulate or explain the fabric of space itself , or it's limitations and behaviors . There is much more to space , than just particles and their interactions.
P.M.

The electrons , etc. , respond to a different aspect of the differentiated unigrav (root) force .
Then it's wrong to say that the strong force is gravity, because electrons do respond to gravity while not responding to the strong force.
Think different electronshells (or onion layers) .
What do electron shells have to do with this?

...................UniGrav
Paleogravity ; before it splits into the four basic forces . Strong Force is definitely NOT gravity itself , but rather it's derivative .
By the way , y'ever notice : 4 forces, 4 dimensions ?
P.M.

If you wish to talk nonsense this is not the part of the forum to do that. If you don't know any mainstream physics that's OK. This is quite a good place to learn some.

Strong Force is definitely NOT gravity itself
Glad you realize that. Now we can discard the whole "protons are black holes that bind together via gravity" argument.

...Not what I said .
Did refer to the gravity/strong force similarity mentioned by Haramein .
P.M.

Did refer to the gravity/strong force similarity mentioned by Haramein .
So are you saying it's gravity or not? Because his black hole argument seems to say they are the same force.

.......Semantics .
I am saying that my personal view is that all four derive from "stem" gravity . It is distributed by a dimensional process , or prism , that we don't yet understand . We are quite far from understanding what the substance of space actually is , how it was formed , or how it functions . Pride aside , we are just beginning to scratch the surface .
P.M.

Gravity is due to the acceleration of aether into mass where the aether is annihilated. Inertia is due to the acceleration of mass. Gravity & inertia are both due to the flow of aether. Every quantum thing has mass. Aether is subquantum & has no mass. Gravity at a micro level might have little to do with Newton's 1/RR.
Electrostatic & electrodynamic & magnetic forces are probly due to an excitation of aether, ie a vibration or spin or swirl etc.
If elementary particles are flattish then they can be very close together. This might affect gravitational attraction at the micro level (& em attractionrepulsion). If an electron is large & hollow & if a proton is small enough to fit inside an electron then the spacing can in a sense be zero (this would give a neutron).

Just a suggestion: Do what Stephen Hawking couldn't. Play with a few spherical magnets, including nonmagnetised ball bearings of different sizes, like I and my granddaughter Zahra have. The first thing that might strike you (painfully) on one of your digits is a pair of magnets. This is called the Engineering Approach. It led me to my first conjecture, via the thought that magnetism isn't granular, but divisible into everdecreasing quanta until we get to the ultimate form that Maxwell calculated all those years ago. Massless magnetism is what we can discern as quarks. We have given quarks six flavours  up/down, charmed/strange/ and top/bottom. One pair of those just means north/south magnetism. Another just means back/wards/forwards relative to time. And the third pair is just clockwise spin/anticlockwise spin.
So
You might connect all that to the thought that nothing curves space more strongly than magnetism. But wait. Consider the mighty electron. Look at an atom of hydrogen. The proton consists of three quarks, two ups and a down (or maybe that should be two downs and an up. It doesn't really matter. One's an antiquark, closely entangled with its quark. there is no more mysterious thing than the ability for the positive charge of the proton to be cancelled by a single electron buzzing around that proton like a bee in a cathedral. The electron can't really fly about fast enough to quite do the job. Its willing assistent, the almost massless somethingino, has to help out. Whether the ino is a gravitino, a neutrino, or a magnetrino is the question that needs to be decided.
I tend to think that that the ino has to add a bit more negativity, rather than gravity or positronity to cancel the positivity of the three matter/antimatter quarks. Adding quarkinos is not an answer either, though I'm often wrong about arithmetic, never mind mathematics.
Well, I hope this is helpful.
By the way, the Final Book published on behalf of Stephen rather startled me when I got to Nelson (page 111 in cricketing jargon). The statement that black holes can't emit anything has to be a mistake. Hawking radiation does exist. Quasars and neutron stars are detected by polar gamma rays doing gymnastics in space. Two colliding black holes have been detected because their polar radiation causes ripples in the fabric of space. From our universe to our entangled antiuniverse we have antiradiation and antimatter streaming through the black hole portal, so looked from inside the black hole (well, it has to be a sphere to be symmetrical with us, doesn't it?) the antimatter life forms would never say our 'white' hole (no 'racism' intended, it's really just a word that implies 'antiblack' hole).
If you would like to see how all my conjecturing began, try the Naked Science Forum topics 713717 (symmetry there, eh ?) and the new theory the Naked Scientists made it, Topic 71376 (and Many Thanks to them) .
Best Wishes, AlanM (and from Zahra too, of course.)

He says that if you model a pair of protons as two black holes, the gravitational force between them turns out to be equal to the strength of the strong force. To be fair, a pair of protonmass black holes could have an attractive force acting between them that was equal to what we call the strong force if they were sufficiently close together. The problem with this, however, is that the electrical repulsion between those charged black holes is going to increase at the exact same rate as the gravitational attraction is. So changing the distance between those black holes will actually have no affect on how strongly they attract or repel each other (and the repulsion will be much, much higher).One could get around that problem if you posit that the inversesquare law ceases to operate for gravity and/or the electromagnetic force at extremely tiny distances, but evidence for this is currently lacking. Even if you did make a model where that was true, then it would need to explain why it doesn't work for many different particles. Electrons, muons and tau particles all have mass, so they should be able to bind together using the strong force if the strong force is a form of gravity. Yet they don't.Then there are particle experiments that demonstrate the existence of gluon particles, which were predicted in advance in order to explain how the strong force operates. The strong force also has its own conservation laws that do not apply to gravity (hypercharge and color charge).
The gravity attraction between 2 protons doesn't have to overcome their electrical repulsion, because diproton is extremely unstable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_helium#Helium2_(diproton)
Proton also has nonzero electric polarizability, which can reduce repulsion at close distance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton

........Clarification .
To be as clear as possible ; my big idea here is that there was/is one primeval force : "UniGrav" . When everything was one , U.G. was all there was . Oneness was powerfully connected to itself , and it was NOT letting go . At some "point" , obscene energy was injected . Oneness shattered , or "fresneled" , into four dimensions , along with four accompanying physical forces . As with a bullseye target , the surrounding bands had an outwardfacing side , and an inwardfacing side . The center , however , had only the outwardfacing side . These correlate to the Strong , Weak , E.M. , and Gravity forces , with gravity as the center . Accordingly , it has only attraction , whereas the others have both attractive and repulsive sides . The gravity force is the closest to the original , base force . It relates the most to the original state of the universe . As many quantum effects have shown us , it's STILL all connected !
P.M.

To be as clear as possible
If that's as clear as it gets: quit.

The gravity attraction between 2 protons doesn't have to overcome their electrical repulsion, because diproton is extremely unstable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_helium#Helium2_(diproton)
Then I can use helium3 as the example instead, which is stable. There is still an enormous repulsive force acting between the two protons in a helium3 nucleus.
Proton also has nonzero electric polarizability, which can reduce repulsion at close distance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton
At the scale of protons and neutrons, the electromagnetic force is 36 orders of magnitude stronger than the gravitational force (that's 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times larger). You think some polarizability is going to overcome such a colossal level of repulsion?

Then I can use helium3 as the example instead, which is stable. There is still an enormous repulsive force acting between the two protons in a helium3 nucleus.
How can strong force overcome electrostatic repulsion in Helium3, but fails to do so in Helium2?
If Helium3 is modeled as 3 protons in equilateral triangle configuration with an electron in the middle (instead of 2 protons and 1 neutron that we usually see), we can calculate that attractive force to each proton by central electron can overcome repulsive forces by the other protons.

How can strong force overcome electrostatic repulsion in Helium3, but fails to do so in Helium2?
The strong force does overcome the repulsion between the two protons in helium2. The reason that it is unstable is because a deuterium nucleus is more stable than it is, so it decays into deuterium.
If Helium3 is modeled as 3 protons in equilateral triangle configuration with an electron in the middle (instead of 2 protons and 1 neutron that we usually see), we can calculate that attractive force to each proton by central electron can overcome repulsive forces by the other protons.
Care to show those calculations?
That model doesn't work anyway, since we know that neutrons exist.and they aren't simply a proton plus an electron.

Here's a little question for you all: What if Stephen Hawking's decision to pay the man who bet him he (Stephen) was wrong to say the Higgs boson(s) were superfluous ?
Today I tend to aver that Stephen won that bet when he floated that idea. Often repeated is the idea that mathematics is too precise to mean anything to the masses (I mean folks like me who, like Michael Faraday, stand in awe of Maxwell, Einstein, Feynman and a world of other chaps whose gedankenexperiments (mostly last century) were and are done with esoteric symbols, and fearsomely elegant theorems. Einstein, Hoyle, and Feynman have said it all very simply, long ago. Neither they nor Stephen have managed to stitch the whole picture together in a way that simple engineers could assimilate. I will be going back to my very first conjecture to put a couple more conjectures down that may reinforce my contentions about where exactly all the dark stuff is very much entangled with the whole universe, gravity is not as different from the strong force, and quanta are not as particular as previously imagined. I intend expanding the way I have been disambiguating quarks, quarkinos, photons, photinos, neutrinos, gravitons and gravitinos. More later (see said topics).

Anytime someone postulates a new idea they have to make sure that it does not violate any conservation laws. If the proposer cannot show this then they do not have enough knowledge to be stating such propositions. Go away and read Noether and then you may have a better chance.

Anytime someone postulates a new idea they have to make sure that it does not violate any conservation laws. If the proposer cannot show this then they do not have enough knowledge to be stating such propositions. Go away and read Noether and then you may have a better chance.
If the mess that modern science is in is due to conservation laws then praps its time to look more closely at thems laws or at least how they are used. I daresay that all conservation laws rely on action force = reaction force. How can a new theory violate that? In any case there must be an infinite number of possible theories that dont violate conservation, & only one can be correct.
And mathland should be updated to deal with the real world. All of our lengths & shapes & angles & tickings, real & apparent, depend on the Lorentz gamma, yet mathland mostly ignores that. It gets worse, when gamma is recognised it is the Einsteinian gamma, not the Lorentz gamma, i doubt that Noether can fix that.
I am afraid that as is usual the situation is the reverse of the standard canon, the real situation is that Noether is never applicable to any theory (except praps in rare circumstances when the Einsteinian agrees with the Lorentzian). Or putting it another way, Noether is ok, but Einsteinians dont know how to use Noether properly, ie it rarely works in Einsteinland.
Anyhow i am suspicious of that name noether. Would sound better if say etherforever.

The strong force does overcome the repulsion between the two protons in helium2. The reason that it is unstable is because a deuterium nucleus is more stable than it is, so it decays into deuterium.
How much is the strong force?
why not decay to hydrogen1?

Care to show those calculations?That model doesn't work anyway, since we know that neutrons exist.and they aren't simply a proton plus an electron.
Let's say an electron is placed in the origin of a coordinate. Three protons are arranged in equilateral triangle 1 length unit away from the electron in a flat plane. Thus, the distance between protons is
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Equilateraltriangleheights.svg
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Equilateraltriangleheights.svg)
Electrostatic electric force by electron to each proton is attractive. The magnitude is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between electron and proton. In this case it's 1.
The repulsive force between protons is thus 1/3.
Combined repulsive force by other proton is
= ≈ 0.577
Hence for each proton, total attractive force is larger than total repulsive force.
The existence of particles other than electron and proton, such as neutron, muon, as well as any other particles doesn't prove nor disprove the argument above, hence it's a non sequitur logical fallacy.

How much is the strong force?
What do you mean exactly? How strong is it or how much binding energy it has?
why not decay to hydrogen1?
Because there isn’t enough mass available in the nucleus to allow for that. The individual components of a helium nucleus added together weigh very slightly more than the nucleus itself. This is called a “mass defect”.
Let's say an electron is placed in the origin of a coordinate. Three protons are arranged in equilateral triangle 1 length unit away from the electron in a flat plane. Thus, the distance between protons is
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Equilateraltriangleheights.svg
Electrostatic electric force by electron to each proton is attractive. The magnitude is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between electron and proton. In this case it's 1.
The repulsive force between protons is thus 1/3.
Combined repulsive force by other proton is
Okay, so why don’t we use your model to calculate the predicted binding energy of a He^{3} nucleus?
The electrostatic potential energy equation is given by U_{E} = k_{e}(qQ/r), where:
U_{E} is the electrostatic potential energy in joules
k_{e} is Coulomb’s constant (8.99 x 10^{9} N*m^{2}*C^{2}
q is the magnitude of charge 1 in coulombs
Q is the magnitude of charge 2 in coulombs
r is the distance between the charges
Since the charge on the proton and electron are equal, the equation simplifies to U_{E} = k_{e}(q^{2}/r). I couldn’t find the experimental diameter of the He^{3} nucleus, but it must be between that of hydrogen (1.7566 x 10^{15} m) and uranium (1.17142 x 10^{14} m). I will therefore use both values for distance to put an upper and lower bound on what the actual binding energy would be. I’ll start by calculating the potential energy between two protons separated by the diameter of a hydrogen nucleus:
U_{E} = k_{e}(q^{2}/r)
U_{E} = (8.99 x 10^{9})((1.602177 x 10^{19})^{2})/1.7566 x 10^{15}))
U_{E} = (8.99 x 10^{9})((2.5669699 x 10^{38})/1.7566 x 10^{15}))
U_{E} = (8.99 x 10^{9})(1.4613286 x 10^{23})
U_{E} = +1.313734 x 10^{13} joules
The value is positive because there is a repulsive force between the protons, which means that energy is store and can be released from this arrangement.
Now for the energy involved when the distance is increased to that of a uranium nucleus:
U_{E} = k_{e}(q^{2}/r)
U_{E} = (8.99 x 10^{9})((1.602177 x 10^{19})^{2})/1.17142 x 10^{14}))
U_{E} = (8.99 x 10^{9})((2.5669699 x 10^{38})/1.17142 x 10^{14}))
U_{E} = (8.99 x 10^{9})(2.1913318 x 10^{24})
U_{E} = +1.97 x 10^{14} joules
Since there are three protonproton repulsions in your model, we multiply these values by 3, resulting in a total repulsive potential energy ranging from 5.9 x 10^{14} to 3.941202 x 10^{13} joules.
But now we need to calculate the energy involved in the electronproton attraction. In an equilateral triangle, the height is the square root of 3 divided by two multiplied by the length of one side. Divide this in half again to get the distance between a point on the triangle and its center. So for the hydrogen nucleus diameter, this results in a distance of 7.6063 x 10^{16} meters and for uranium it’s 5.072397 x 10^{15} meters. I can now use these distances to calculate the energy:
U_{E} = k_{e}(q^{2}/r)
U_{E} = (8.99 x 10^{9})((1.602177 x 10^{19})^{2})/7.6063 x 10^{16}))
U_{E} = (8.99 x 10^{9})((2.5669699 x 10^{38})/7.6063 x 10^{16}))
U_{E} = (8.99 x 10^{9})(3.374794 x 10^{23})
U_{E} = 3.0339 x 10^{13} joules
U_{E} = k_{e}(q^{2}/r)
U_{E} = (8.99 x 10^{9})((1.602177 x 10^{19})^{2})/5.072397 x 10^{15}))
U_{E} = (8.99 x 10^{9})((2.5669699 x 10^{38})/5.072397 x 10^{15}))
U_{E} = (8.99 x 10^{9})(5.060664 x 10^{24})
U_{E} = 4.549537 x 10^{14} joules
The values are negative because an input of energy is needed to separate the electron and the proton, since they are attracted to each other. Since there are three protonelectron attractions in your model, we multiply these values by 3, resulting in a total attractive potential energy ranging from 1.3648611 x 10^{13} to 9.1017 x 10^{13} joules.
Now we add together the repulsive and attractive potential energies to get the total binding energy. For the hydrogen distance:
(+1.313734 x 10^{13} joules) + (3.0339 x 10^{13} joules) = 1.720166 x 10^{13} joules per nucleus, which is 1.03588 x 10^{11} joules per mole.
For the uranium distance:
(+1.97 x 10^{14} joules) + (4.549537 x 10^{14} joules) = 2.579537 x 10[/sup]14[/sup] joules per nucleus, which is 1.55339 x 10^{10} joules per mole.
Compare these values with the actual, measured binding energy of He^{3}, which is 6.46071 x 10^{11} joules per mole (calculated from its mass defect of 0.00718853426 atomic mass units).
So your model predicts a binding energy that is somewhere between 6.2369 and 41.591 times too small to be accurate to experiment. So we can throw it out as falsified.
By the way, your model also violates conservation of lepton number. When a tritium nucleus decays into a helium3 nucleus, it releases an electron and an electron antineutrino. If the atomic nucleus contains neutrons, this is not a problem. If, however, there is a proton and electron in the nucleus instead of a neutron, then the net lepton number before and after the decay are different.
The existence of particles other than electron and proton, such as neutron, muon, as well as any other particles doesn't prove nor disprove the argument above, hence it's a non sequitur logical fallacy.
The nuclear shell model and liquid drop model do a pretty good job of describing the properties of the nucleus, and both assume that neutrons are present: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_shell_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiempirical_mass_formula

Why do you refer to Uranium nucleus?
I don't know how you get those numbers, and how to isolate a single atom nucleus from interaction with its environment, including orbiting electrons and adjacent other atoms to measure the binding energy.
By the way, your model also violates conservation of lepton number. When a tritium nucleus decays into a helium3 nucleus, it releases an electron and an electron antineutrino. If the atomic nucleus contains neutrons, this is not a problem. If, however, there is a proton and electron in the nucleus instead of a neutron, then the net lepton number before and after the decay are different.
What are the lepton numbers of those particles?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lepton_number#Violations_of_the_lepton_number_conservation_laws

Why do you refer to Uranium nucleus?
Because I was able to find a value for its diameter. I was only using it as an upper bound on the possible size of the helium3 nucleus because I was unable to find any literature stating the size of the helium3 nucleus.
I don't know how you get those numbers
The value for the diameter of atomic nuclei came from the "Table of experimental nuclear ground state charge radii": https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092640X12000265?via%3Dihub
and how to isolate a single atom nucleus from interaction with its environment, including orbiting electrons and adjacent other atoms to measure the binding energy.
The binding energy is calculated from the difference between the mass of an atomic nucleus and each of its component particles. The mass of an atomic nucleus can be determined using mass spectrometry: https://www.livescience.com/20581weighatom.html
What are the lepton numbers of those particles?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lepton_number#Violations_of_the_lepton_number_conservation_laws
Protons have a lepton number of zero, whereas electrons have a lepton number (more specifically, electron number), of one. The violation mentioned in the article is between specific forms of lepton number (i.e. changing from muon number to electron number). However, the total lepton number is still the same. In other cases where lepton number is violated, the total baryon number minus lepton number (BL) is still conserved: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B_%E2%88%92_L
Your model violates BL because the baryon number remains the same before and after decay whereas the lepton number changes.

How about this for a suggestion ? Appologies to Goscinny and Uderzo)
“Gravity is the strong force, and is moderated by magnetism.”
Max Planck in 1900 showed the arbitrariness of scales. His Planck dimensions show us how to deal with those.
Albert Einstein by 1955 had wrapped up relativity of everything. Most of can get that.
Fred Hoyle long ago had provided us with the pesky constant of gravitation which is the steady state of the universe.
Richard Feynman was next to put Dirac’s antimatter into context with a few words about antimatter travelling backwards in time.
About a year ago a newbie called Alan M started agitating about magnets, thanks to his grandchild Zahra.
Now consider magnetrix and electrix, today’s names for the basix of everything. Not particlix or waveletix, but quantumix.
In my garage (a typical black hole, if ever there was one) I have magnets (ballshaped are the best) making macromodels of the magnetrix doing amazing things. I defy anyone to pull apart my buttonshaped macromagnetix. The only way to part these amazingly strong ferriteconcentrated stringsix is by sliding them apart. I have steelcoated ferriteconcentrated macromagnetix that have been slid apart often when I put on and take off my member name badge for meetings of the Probus Club of Simon’s Town. The steel coatings are a little rough as a result. Now it is getting difficult to even slide those little buttonmagentix concentrations sideways past each other, so intensely is the ‘force’ we call friction concentrated by magnetismix.
I should include a few photos of my magnets, but as time is short here in Seaforth today, perhaps you could build your own mental pictures of what I have my macromagnetix doing down below:
A single one is modelling a ‘dimensionless’ dot (ie: the beginning of a dimensionless string). Two together are modelling a string, and will continue to latch onto as many others as I have macromagnetix to add. But it gets much more pleasing when one realises that three together will very stably make a triangle (ie: my magnetic stringthingys readily go twodimensional). And, YES ! Four together WILL go threedimensional and make a tetrahedron, the first Platonic solid ! You have probably guessed by now that those same four very readily go back to a stable twodimensional square. They are adherents of Mark Shuttleworth. Obviously. (“It’s HIP to be square”)
Next step: Add another macromagnetix. Now you have five. Yes, they will get together in two dimensions, and make a pentagon. But five together won’t cooperate and go symmetrically into a hexahedron or if you like, a cube. Add a sixth, and the string readily becomes a hexagon. Now they like each other enough to do another threedimensional Platonic solid. It is a twisted cube. I don’t know what I should call that, but any way you look at it, you see three balls on the far side, and three balls on the near side. It must be an octohedron.
Now add a seventh. What I have now in two dimensions, is a dot in the middle, tightly surrounded by six siblings. A bodycentred hexagon, I suppose describes it neatly. The threedimensional solid is not perfect. It has a wobbly number 7 member. So Plato has no claim on this one. There is definitely a ‘mass’ ‘ambiguity’, but if one ignores it as too small to bother with, one could call the whole lump of balls a slightly flattened octohedron. You now have to add multiple magnetic balls to get to the next Platonic solid. I don’t have enough to do it properly.
So let’s just leave it there for the (magnetic) moment. Sorry (like not really) about the ‘pun’.
Back to my question: What say y’all ? The Magnetrixs on the Left have it ? (Or do the AntiMagnetrixes on the Right have it, actually ?)
In my humble opinion, it is balanced perfectly, like the universe and its antiuniverse.
Alan M

2019 02 27 Naked Science Forum Topic: (Isn’t it time to change the title, and add Ruby to Alan M and Zahra ?)
An Energetic Interpretation (‘Demo’ ?) of an Awful Lot of Science 
And ALL (well, nearly all) of it done in a century NOT too long ago !
© Zahra, Ruby, and Alan M, Hoedspruit, West Sussex, and Seaforth, Simon’s Town.
Here’s today’s suggestion for a complete demo kit (I hope to complete my own, with only one or two models needed as additions to my existing garage (black hole) stock of magnets, copper pipes, coloured lasers, mirrors, lenses, and soon and soon).
1. Photons, electrons, and black ‘holes’: Pith Balls, coloured silver, white, and black (shiny and matt).
2. Quarks: Ball magnets, variously coloured but especially red, green, blue, silver and black.
3. Branes: Fridge magnets, about 5cm by 5cm, preferably not too thick, and plain (free of paint or any other attachments or contamination).
4. Strings: Five or more ball (spherical) magnets (too big to swallow), in polished sintered neodymium iron, bi coloured (one colour for “Up” and the other for “Down” (say, black and white.) Another 5 or more, encased in plastic, and in colours red (for ‘Top’), yellow (for ‘Bottom’), green (for ‘strange’), blue (for ‘charmed’), and, as already mentioned, black (for ‘Up’), and white (for ‘Down’).
5. Photon momentum: One of those little “perpetuum mobile” machines, ie small verticalaxis horizontally rotating impulse turbine bladed rotors (protected in a transparent dome from air wind but exposed to solar radiation wind), each paddle silver (totally reflective) on its front (sunward) side and matt black (totally light absorbent) on its dark side.
6. Electron fields: A couple of blownup balloons coloured blue (for “negatively charged”) and preferably made of really tough plastic so their “fabric of the cosmos” isn’t easily ripped or popped. And if the balloons aren’t perfectly spherical, they are just as they should be. Only a really isolated electron’s field can be a perfect sphere. And only a really isolated universe can be a perfect (well, almost perfect) sphere.
7. Black ‘holes’ (they aren’t really black at all, and neither are they holes. Nor are they holograms, for that matter (excuse the pun): For final recognition of the Flat Earth Society, please admit that the portals into “Black holes” ARE two dimensional. (Well, again, ALMOST two dimensional.) The edges of ANY point like, flat or spherical energy quantum, from gravitinos, magnetrinos, and electrinos to really large structures like solar systems, galaxies, and a(ny) universe(s) are inevitably uncertain, as explained by Max Planck in 1900 or so.
8. Twinned “Matter verse” / “Anti matter verse” pairs: Soap bubble kits or intersecting spherical glass or plastic bubbles. They nicely show the twodimensional (if flat) or three dimensional (if a lens) portals between “Black holes”.
9. Photon generators: Cheap laser and led devices. These are great for demonstrating photon and gamma ray phenomena like Xrays, visible and invisible light skin penetration, infra red and ultra violet heat transfer rates, standing waves and other energy storage myths.
10. And for the rest: A miscellany of batteries (single use chemical and re chargeable), safe (non short circuitable) conductors and insulators (dielectrics), switches, variable resistors, inductors and capacitors, quite often perfectly sourced from your weekly ‘recyclables’.
So there we will stop (for the moment).
A Big THANKYOU to all @ The Naked Scientists. Zahra, Ruby and I hope this latest reply to ourselves will assist you all in your endeavours to spread a little SCIENCE where it's needed. See our next BIG Question, in honour of SIR (seriously Ignored Reasoner) Stephen Hawking. Your humble Z,A,R (South African and aged Seaforthian Reasoners at the cutting edge of African Space). Have a Happy Happy Day.

I know that the strong nuclear force is 36 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity, but could they be the same fundamental force? My thinking is that gravity on the scale of femtometers could obey the law of 1/r^19 (20 dimensions of space, 17 of which are too small to measure) which obeys the rules of how the strong nuclear force falls of significantly over minute distances. Once r is more than a few femtometers we are out of the realms of the tiny, curled up dimensions and into the three normal dimensions of space and the power of attraction is 36 orders of magnitude smaller.
I am a layman, but I do wish to study physics. Please can you explain to me why this obvious (to me) solution is wrong? I am sure if it were this simple, it would have been proven a long time ago.
Gravity is due to the acceleration of aether inflow into mass where aether is annihilated.
The inflow streamlines converge in 3D towards the center of mass & give a 1/RR relationship for gravitational force. The inflow is praps equal to the escape velocity (at Earth 11.2 kmps).
Aether also accelerates into mass that is spinning, a centrifugal inertia effect, but here the aether is not annihilated, it is sucked in radially near the equator & then spat out axially near the two poles. The inflow streamlines converge in 2D towards the axis of spin & probly give a 1/R relationship for this quasigravitational attraction force. The outflow streamlines probly dont converge or diverge & hencely probly result in zero or little attraction or repulsion. At a macro level such spinning affects the aetherwind. We have ...........
(1) The background wind blowing throo the solar system. This probly has some kind of galactic Milky Way orientation, or more probly some kind of cosmic origin & orientation (see Ranzan's DSSU).
(2) The background wind is affected by aether inflow to the Sun due to the Sun's mass, which at Earth's orbit might be an inflow of 42 kmps (that being the Sun's escape velocity at Earth's orbit). So the resulting background aetherwind near Earth is 500 kmps south to north throo Earth at 20 deg off Earth's spinaxis RA 4:30.
(3) Aether inflow into Earth due to Earth's mass (this contributes say 11.2 kmps at Earth's surface).
(4) Aether inflow into Earth near Equator due to Earth's spin (a centrifugal inertial effect)(pseudo gravity because no aether is annihilated).
(5) Aether outflow from Earth near the Poles, due to (4).
(6) Aether inflow into Earth on the far side of Earth from the Sun, due to Earth's orbit (centrifugal)(pseudo gravity because no aether is annihilated).
(7) Aether outflow from Earth on the nearside to the Sun, due to (6).
They say that at a micro level spinning can approach the speed of light (c). They say that electrons spin, & protons & neutrons spin. And i suppose quarks spin, in which case a proton has a double dose of spinwind. We have .........
(8 ) The spinwind (inflow at equator & outflow near poles) from the internal self spin of each of the 3 quarks, which gives a 1/R relationship to the resulting attraction force near the equator of each quark (centrifugal)(pseudo gravity).
(9) The spinwind from the external spinning of the quarks around the proton's spinaxis, which gives a 1/R relationship to the resulting attraction force near the equator of each proton (centrifugal)(pseudo gravity).
(10) The inflow into each of the three quarks due to their mass (a 1/RR attraction).
Anyhow now that i have explained an aetheric perspective i reckon that we are in a better position to think about the possibility of gravity (10) having a roll to play in the strong force holding protons together. I have shown that the best candidate for the strong force is (8 ) pseudo gravity, due to a quark's spin, & (9) pseudo gravity, due to a proton's spin.