{Fundamental Forces [continued(6)]}[22nd October 1979]

[Redbook2:159F-G][19791022:2255a]{Fundamental Forces [continued(6)]}[22nd October 1979]

19791022:.2255

[continued]

It is extremely tempting, having seen the electron as the negative part of the pair (and, presumably, the electrically “active” or “working” part, if I recall my schoolday electrics correctly – but I may well not), to identify it with Distraction and to look for signs of Attraction in the nucleus – 'extremely small, stable centres which constitute the source of the electric force and form the skeletons of the great variety of molecular structures' (Capra). But one should beware of too hasty construction. The nucleus, after all, is not the end of the matter. So, for example: 'The strong nuclear force … acts only when the nucleons come very near to each other, that is, when their distance is about two to three times their diameter. At such a distance, the nuclear force is strongly attractive, but when the distance becomes less the force becomes strongly repulsive so that the nucleons* cannot approach each other any closer***. In this way, the nuclear force keeps the nucleus in an extremely stable, though extremely dynamic equilibrium.'

And 'the nuclear force... could not be of electromagnetic origin since the neutrons were electrically neutral**' (Capra). Here's a pretty kettle of fish! (Perhaps Attraction and Distraction work more closely together the 'deeper' one goes, up to a point, as in the (strong) nuclear force; perhaps this co-operation might be made manifest in the Nucleus itself, between the electrically neutral Neutron and the (presumably) electrically charged Proton.)

*(Nucleons: protons and neutrons within the nucleus.)

**(i.e. because it bound them as well as the Protons.)

*** Can this really be right? Or does the Coulomb/electrostatic force hold (positively charged) nucleons apart? <921022>

[continues]

[PostedBlogger2911for01122014]