Using classical simulations and point (or small extended) particles, I find the magnetic force to be about 10,000 times smaller than the electric repulsion for small nuclei. This seems to be a consequence of the size of the electric constant compared to the magnetic constant which dominates over assumptions of amps of current in neutrons (bounded by the speed of light) or variations in the placement of the nucleons. However if nucleons or alpha particles can surround each other like Russian dolls, the electric repulsion vectors may cancel out since they are pointing in every direction (for instance, every outward direction from a sphere of an inner proton or every inward direction from an outer proton back onto the inner proton. It is important to use nonuniform charge distributions because a theorem of Newton shows that, if they come from uniform mass/charge distributions with spherical symmetry, outer shells produce no force on inner shells and vice versa. That actually might be a good starting point for you, but I want my shells to be stable to perturbations as well as having large scale cancellations of forces. What do you think, Emmanouil Markoulakis ?

Article Orbit of an Extended Body in a Repulsive Field: Toward an El...

All the forc es

The question is quite strange. A lot of work was done since the 1930's, when the nature of the interactions between nucleons was in discussion . The existence and properties of the strong force were studied in particular with p-p and p-n scattering experiments. Their theoretical explanation came with the quark model of the nucleons and the possibility for them to exchange mesons like the pi meson. The difference between p-p and p-n strong interactions is obvious as p-p can only exchange neutral mesons, while p-n can also exchange charged mesons and thus interact more strongly, allowing the stability of deuterium H-2 while He-2 or the dineutron are not bound.

This strong interaction is completely dominant with respect to the magnetic forces.

I believe a more simple quantitative analysis of the magnetic moment interaction between the proton and the neutron would suffice to answer the question. If this interaction magnetic force proves to be much smaller than the measured known strong force then this will prove that the strong force is not magnetic.

Another way to prove that the strong force is not magnetic is to examine if the bonds between the p-n-p are not elastic.

François Tondeur ,

It is possible scattering in this case is not the correct experiment to do since the measurement probably disturbs the ground state and is an intrusive method.

Elastic scattering does not change the internal energy of the target, but simply produces its recoil. It was considered appropriate in the study of the strong interaction, already in the middle of last century. The goal was not to prove that the strong interaction is different from the magnetic force, but it was certainly a part of the outcome of this research.

François Tondeur ,

Well the scattering experiments have show an attractive strong force range at 0.5fm to 2 fm. Below 0.5 fm the strong force becomes strongly repulsive. Similar to a normal mechanical spring.

I can demonstrate the same analogous behavior with an axial polarized ring magnet and a bar magnet. At the far field the unlike poles attract but the face polarity of the ring magnet flips inside its inner radius. As you approach the bar magnet close to the center of the ring instead of being attracted it will feel repulsion.

It possible IMO that electromagnetism can be unified with the strong force. We are missing something.

The question is indeed really rather questionable, since fundamental Nature Electric and Nuclear/Strong forces are fundamentally different, and have well different strengths – Electric/EM Force at interactions is weaker in ~ 100 times than the Nuclear/Strone one.

Though this

“...The existence and properties of the strong force were studied in particular with p-p and p-n scattering experiments. Their theoretical explanation came with the quark model of the nucleons and the possibility for them to exchange mesons like the pi meson....”

- though is in accordance with mainstream QCD looks as rather questionable as well, since QCD itself in this case looks as rather questionable: the nucleons “possibility for them to exchange mesons like the pi meson”, while at that nucleons radiate, to exchange by, these mesons constantly and always, what looks as something strange/mystic, since can happen only if at that energy conservation law remain be valid only by some mystic way – as it is valid at experiments really.

This problem in QCD [though that is in QED as well, where electrically charged particles exchange by photons; and that is in classical ED, where the EM fields are constantly and always radiated] is solved by that the Forces mediators are “virtual”, what again looks as is strange: for any normal human it is quite clear that real interactions only some real mediators can do.

Really the mediators are, of course, real, and are as that is in with a well non-zero probability correct initial models of at least Gravity, Electric [some fundamental Magnetic Force doesn’t exist], and Nuclear/Strong Forces, more see the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale informational physical model paper

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/395113364_Planck_scale_informational_physical_model_and_fundamental_problems_in_physics, section 6. “Mediation of the fundamental forces in complex systems”,

- where it is rigorously shown that these 3 Forces act on Planck scale by the same scheme, where

the mediators are real, aren’t particles, and so, if are radiated by a particle’s Forces charges , don’t carry energy, though carry specific momentums that cause in “irradiated” having the same charges particle releasing “kinematical” momentums and corresponding transformation of the irradiated particle’s “own” E=mc2 energy portion into [if the particle is free] its kinetic energy.

That, again, happens at all Forces acting, the difference of N/S-Force from G- and E- Forces is in that its mediators are unstable and decays with ~Yukawa radius r/ctume.

At that, say, there exist no any “virtual mesons fur coats” around nuclei, energy conservation law acts without any problems, so, say, a nucleus own mass is lesser then sum of free nucleons masses on the mass defect/binding energy, etc.

Though the N/S Force initial model above now doesn’t explain the “5fm hard core” effect, why dineutrons don’t exist, etc., however in such cases well possibly other “Forces” can act – quarks angular momentums/spins conservation inside nucleons, etc.

That must be clarified at further development of the SS&VT initial model above in physical society, and so, say, instead of though “obvious” this

“.... The difference between p-p and p-n strong interactions is obvious as p-p can only exchange neutral mesons, while p-n can also exchange charged mesons and thus interact more strongly, allowing the stability of deuterium H-2 while He-2 or the dineutron are not bound......”

- more realistic explanation will be obtained. Say, yet now it looks as that quarks “asymptotic freedom” happens since quarks on small distances are oriented in space so, that their mediators don’t cross quarks each other; etc. more see the link above.

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko ,

I agree with your points but since magnetic force has been never experimentally tested at this distances we cannot be absolute sure. Maybe at these distance EM force undergoes a transformation and is unified with the strong force? History shows repeatedly that it is different facets of the same phenomenon. It happens with the electroweak force at very high energies.

Emmanouil Markoulakis

Really in

“...I agree with your points but since magnetic force has been never experimentally tested at this distances, we cannot be absolute sure....”

- there is with a well non-zero probability no necessity to measure magnetic force experimentally at any distances at hadrons interactions aimed at to observe some magnetic force action that exceeds Strong Force action; practically for sure it is more than in 100 times lesser.

That is another thing, [again rather probably ] that in seems well confidently observed experimentally as “quarks asymptotic freedom” effect – at small distances between quarks in hadrons the strong force essentially decreases [a scientifically rational explanation of this effect see SS&VT model link in yesterday SS post], and in this case the electric/magnetic impact – and not on;y, of course - can be essential; however that now is only guesses that can be really scientifically elaborated only basing on the model; but really that is possible by no means now.

However, this

“.... Maybe at these distance EM force undergoes a transformation and is unified with the strong force? History shows repeatedly that it is. It happens with the electroweak force at very high energies.....”

- really looks as is well, if practically, probably incorrect. Fundamental Nature forces are fundamentally functionally different, and so really cannot transform each into other. Particles – again see the linked paper – are specific disturbances/ cyclic algorithms that run on FLE hardware in the Matter’s ultimate base - the (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice of primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE], while the Forces charges are written on the algorithms’ FLEs, which radiate the Forces mediators,

- and at extremely high energy interactions of the particles, indeed some “non-standard” the algorithms’ running in the lattice well possibly can happen, but the corresponding effects should be studied not basing, at least only, on some “the Forces different facets of the same phenomenon” approach.

Cheers

The electric force does not need a stronger force to balance it in the nucleus. Just an orbit with the right geometry. Imagine if we said all the planets will shortly plunge into the sun because gravity is attractive and no force acts to counteract it. Simple but wrong. Nucleons and alpha particles may orbit each other as I discussed here if they are extended bodies: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_the_electromagnetic_force_balance_itself_in_the_nucleus.

David Selke ,

This is actually also close to my model of the ground state H-1 atom:

https://www.horntorus.com/particle-model/H-1-m-flux.html

Best Regards,

Emmanouil

Emmanouil Markoulakis ,

Your graphic looks a lot like the "Physics Detective" blog (he is a guy who reads old forgotten physics papers). Take a look at https://physicsdetective.com/the-electron/ and CTRL+F down to "The electron has spherical symmetry". A few lines below that, check out the graphics, especially the third one. I'll bet his other articles will interest you as well! Getting away from the point particle assumption is certainly, to me, where the next breakthrough lies.

Thanks,

Dave

David Selke ,

I know, his work is similar to mine.

https://www.horntorus.com/particle-model/

We known each other personally and on web meetings. We are both members of the zitter-institute, https://www.zitter-institute.org/ .

He is a brilliant guy.

He has referenced properly my related research in his site:

https://physicsdetective.com/the-zitter-institute/

Article A ½ spin fiber model for the electron

Cheers!

David Selke ,

Sorry, I misunderstood your previous message.

No. The animations of the electron in the Physics Detector link you have provided are not mine. My model is similar to his and the animations of my model are here:

https://www.horntorus.com/particle-model/

@Emmanouil Markoulakis ,

I only meant that the graphics look similar, not that they are the same.

That's great that the two of you know each other. I'll bet it can be quite lonely outside of the mainstream. Keep at it! :D

David Selke ,

I am obliged also to tell that my animations were programmed by my friend and colaborator Wolfgang W. Däumler which has unfortunately deceased last year.

I'm sorry to hear that your friend passed. Looks like he did awesome work. I hope you will meet again on the other side :)

I have another answer but based on a new approche : the Theory 5D solitonic i have published on this website and HAL.

In the 5D solitonic model the Universe is not just the familiar four-dimensional stage of space and time but includes a hidden compact fifth dimension that loops back on itself like a tiny circle. Quarks are not isolated points but topological knots that wind around this circle, carrying a kind of geometric charge. When one tries to pull two quarks apart the field lines that connect them do not spread out and dilute as in electromagnetism but instead bundle together into a narrow flux tube that wraps around the fifth dimension. This tube has a constant tension so the further the quarks are separated the more energy is stored, linearly with the distance. At some point it b ecomes energetically cheaper for the tube to break by creating a new quark–antiquark pair than to stretch any further, which is why no quark is ever observed in isolation. In this way confinement is not a mysterious dynamical effect of a strongly running coupling but the inevitable consequence of the topology of the extra dimension. Remarkably the same geometric field that fixes the phase around the fifth dimension and gives rise to this flux tube is also responsible for selecting a vacuum that breaks electroweak symmetry, so the strong and electroweak interactions emerge as two faces of the same underlying geometry.