PS: Re: Note 430(3) – interpretation of nuclear forces

This is an excellent idea, which could lead to the replacement and great improvement of the quark gluon model because it would remove the need for quantum chromodynamics and its out of control complexity.

Note 430(3) – interpretation of nuclear forces

PS: The Casimir resonance condition

2 m(r) – r dm(r)/dr = 0

was already investigated in UFT 417,3, Figs. 5-6. The above equation is
a diff. eq. with solution

m(r) = c r^2

with a constant c. We could assume that m(r) is quadratic inside the
proton and changes into the exponential (or any other) function outside
the particle as we used for modeling. This would mean that the m-induced
force is very high inside the nucleus of atoms and is a short-ranged
nuclear force, possible replacing the strong and weak interaction of the
standard model.


Am 02.02.2019 um 13:52 schrieb Horst Eckardt:
> If I see it right, eq.(2) is a standing wave in the Casimir volume
> between the metallic plates. I would expect that all three terms were
> either complex or real valued, but anyway.
> When applying classical theroy to the Casimir problem, I would expect
> that U_0 is the potential between the two plates. Because of condition
> (23) it seems not to play a role, is this correct?
> In the final result the Casimir force acting on a particle only
> depends on its momentum. How is m(r) defined? From the centre of each
> particle? It is difficult to understand that this gives a macroscopic
> force a la Casimir. Only in the direct vicinity of the particle a
> force is present. There seems to be a step missing from the single
> particle to a (more or less macroscopic) ensemble.
> Horst

%d bloggers like this: