Are Nuclear and Gravitational fields of the same nature?

Jose N PecinaC.uz1
University of Texas Pan-American
1201 W. University Drive , Edinburg Texas 78539-2999
jpecina2@utpa.edu

This article suggests that nuclear and gravitational forces may be of the same nature. The
ratio between the free fall distance of an object and half of the Schwarzschild radius of a
black hole is identified with the nuclear mass number A= r/m. This substitution, in the
free fall equations, allows one to reproduce the curve of the Binding Energy per Nucleon
(BEN) of a nucleus. A black hole’s formation is the appropriate model to execute this
task. By calculating the energy per particle falling in a black hole the BEN curve is
recreated. Therefore, the nuclei are identified with black holes in the process of forming.
Primordial black hole formations could be the beginning of the nuclear particles zoo.

Introduction

The equivalence principle claims that the acceleration inertial and the gravitational
acceleration that experiment a free falling mass are indistinguishable [1]. Newton’s
Second Law of Motion claims force equals mass times acceleration. It is remarkable that
the application of this law does not depend on the nature of the force. It could be a
gravitational, magnetic, etc. type of force. As a physicist, one attempts to model each
force that one observes with a mathematical formula. However, instead of thinking in
many different forces, with a law for each one, let us apply the Mach principle of
economy of thoughts by claiming that all forces are of inertial nature. Therefore, one is
tempted to generalize the example of Einstein’s elevator. To account the magnetic field,
whose presence is explained by the relative motion of the electrical charges [3]. And so
think a similar mechanism might occur in the generation of nuclear force. If this
conjecture were true for any of the gravitational forces, then we have to explain why
gravitation is so unique.
Following this assumption, that there is a unification of forces (fields) through the
concept of inertial forces, one proceed to perform the calculation of the curve of binding
energy per nucleon by using Einstein gravitational equations with the Schwarzschild
metric as a solution [1].
A curve of average binding energy per nucleon was empirically derived by Weizsäcker
[4]. Later was improved by the Liquid Drop Model of the nucleus [3]. Also Bethe and
Bacher [2] contributed to a clearer understanding of this formula [2]. In Section 1 we will
discuss the derivation of the equation of the Binding Energy per Nucleon from Einstein’s
gravitational equations and Schwarzschild metric. Section 2 is dedicated to the
comparison of the least squared fitting of the nuclear masses obtained from experimental
1
On leave: 1501 Camellia Ave., McAllen, Texas 78501
data [8][9] with the energy per nucleon obtained from GR formula. In the application of
the least square technique one term responsible of the electromagnetic interaction was
added. A very rudimentary Coulomb interaction was used. However, the LSQR fitting of
data was quite good. Quantum corrections were not considered at this time (in He for
instance). However, one was able to calculate the exact formulae for the free fall object in
a massive body. This formula (20) was derived over pure GR bases and is exact.

1. From General Relativity to Nuclear Field

In the calculations for free falling objects in the neighboring area of a very dense mass
one uses Einstein’s equations for a matter-free space, which are given by [7]

ℜαβ = 0.

(1)

For a static spherically symmetric and asymptotically flat, empty space-time, a solution
was proposed by Schwarzschild by using the metric

c 2 dτ 2 = (1 − 2m / r )c 2 dt 2 − (1 − 2m / r ) −1 dr 2 − r 2 dθ 2 − r 2 sin 2 θdφ 2 (2)

Where

MG
m= .
c2

(3)

The equations of free fall are

d 2 xµ ν
µ dx dx
λ
+ Γνλ =0. (4)
dk 2 dk dk

Here k is a parameter that describes the trajectory of the particle, on its journey to the
center of the black hole.

Using the definition of the Christoffel symbols and the components of the Schwarzschild
metric, equation (4) can be written

.. 2m / r 2 . .
t− t r = 0, (5)
1 − 2m / r

2
 .
.. .2
m / r2 . 2 . 2 .2
r − c m / r (1 − 2m / r ) t +
2 2
r − r (1 − 2m / r ) θ − r (1 − 2m / r ) sin θ φ = 0, (6)
2

1 − 2m / r

.
.. 2. . .2
θ + r θ − sin θ cos θ φ = 0, (7)
r

.
.. 2. . . .
(8)
φ + r φ + 2 cot θ θ φ = 0.
r

The solutions of the differential equations (5), (6), (7) and (8) provide us with the free fall
velocity of an object moving under the attraction of a black hole. For instance, integrating
eq. (6) we get

dt c1
= , (9)
dk 1 − 2m / r

g g
where, c1 stands for a constant of integration. If the free fall is radial θ = φ = 0.
Substituting eq. (9) into eq. (6) and applying these conditions we obtain
g
d r c2m / r 2  2 r 2 
=  c1 − 2  . (10)
dk 1 − 2m / r  c 

This equation may be integrated to get

dr
= c[c12 − c 2(1 − 2m / r )]1/2 , (11)
dk

c2 is a new constant of integration. From eq. (10)

dk = (1/ c1)(1 − 2m / r )dt , (12)

Therefore
1/ 2
dr  c 
= c(1 − 2m / r ) 1 − 22 (1 − 2m / r ) . (13)
dt  c1 

3
 dr
When the object is released r − > ∞ => = 0 => c 2 / c12 = 1. the integration constants
dt
c2/c12=1 are evaluated. Therefore the radial velocity of the free falling object is

v = 2mc 2 ( r − 2m ) / r 3/2 . (14)

v can be written in terms of A= r/m

2 c ( A − 2)
v= (15)
A3 / 2

The energy for a falling particle is given by the eigenvalue equations of the Poincare Lie
group

p 2 = m 2c 4 , (16)

where p is a four-vector, which components are generators of the Poincare Lie algebra.

In order to find a meaning for the mass number A let’s follow old Bohr’s quantization of
the Hydrogen atom. Postulating that the angular momentum of the falling nucleon is
quantized, and given by

L = n

(17)

rn =
n (18)
p

rn = nr1
(19)

Therefore,

m rn \ (20)
= = n = A = m a _s ns u m b e r
r r1
Equations (17) to (19) show how in a natural way quantum mechanics appears in the
scenery. Actually the mass number, A, is a quantum number. A is the orbit number in the
old formalism of Bohr’s quantization of the atom[11]. This argument explains why the
nucleons do not collide with each other, within such small space inside a nuclear shell.
Waves can penetrate each other. This explains the superconductivity and superfluity in
the nuclei. The same is true for the “magic numbers.” It may explain hot

4
superconductivity/where the formation of Copper pairs would be independent of
temperature.
The Standard Model is entirely based on SU(3) symmetry. In the Standard Model
asymptotic freedom occurs. The same phenomenon is observed in this model since a very
short distance the nuclear particles are free. As Bohr, philosophically express the systems
in nature repeats. The planetary system as well as the atomic system is a clear of this.
Therefore, the same argument could be used in favor of a nuclear system[12].

2. Nuclear Binding Energy Approximation from Black Hole Formalism

Substituting v given by eq. (15) into eq. (16), one obtains

1/ 2
  1 2
2   2 8 8 
−1


f ( A) = E 0 2 1 / 2 − 3 / 2  1 −  − 2 + 3   + 1 , (20)
 A A   A A A  
 

where, f ( A) is the energy for the free falling particle. It seems in some way natural to
identify the mass number A with a multiple integer (quantum) of the Schwarzschild
radius (A=r/m); since the height of a free fall particle is directly related to its energy.
A=r/m could be identified with energy packets or discrete mass particles. With this
analogy f ( A) is the binding energy of a nucleon bound to a nucleus of mass number A.
Other physical interpretation is obtained by considering this partition r/m, of the energy
as energy quanta which become particles or nuclei fragments after a very energetic
collision. In analogy to a free fall object attracted by a massive body.
It must also be included in the equation for the binding energy per nucleon the
electromagnetic interaction and the quantum effects. The deviation of the curve due to a
quantum interaction for instance, for He is discussed with detail by J. Sakurai [7]. In the
next equation the last term and the first are part of the electromagnetic force. The
potential energy was calculated for Z particles in the nucleus interacting with the free
falling nucleon with Z=1.
Finally, one does not need any numerical expansion to determine the free fall energy of
an object in the neighborhood of a black hole. Because the semi-empirical mass formula
of Bethe and Bacher, in p. 183 [2] is quadratic in Z, there is an atomic number Z which
minimizes M which is called the nuclear charge of the most stable isobar.
The Weizsäcker’s semi-empirical formula for the total energy of a nucleus is slightly
simplified by the authors of Ref 2. It is given by

M = NM n + ZM p + αA + β ( N − Z ) 2 / A + γA 2 / 3 + 3 / 5(e 2 / r0 ) Z 2 A −1 / 3 . (21)

This is a quadratic equation in Z then for each fixed value of A there is a value of Z that
minimizes M.

5
∂M 2( N − Z ) 3e 2 Z 1
= β− + (M p − M n ) = 0 . (22)
∂Z A 5r0 A 1/ 2
2

By substituting A=200 in eq. (20) it is found that the Z value that minimizes M, which is
the nuclear charge of the most stable isobar, denoted Z0=80.
The most stable nucleus of atomic weight 200 has the nuclear charge 80, correspond to
Hg200.
All the elements from Z=1 to Z=80 at least have one stable nuclide. The first 82 from
hydrogen to lead except for technetium (Z=43) and promethium (Z=61). Elements with
Z>82 only have radioactive isotopes.
Therefore if we take as a probability energy distribution function f(A,Z)=f(A)/A or M/A

f ( A, Z ) = M / A = ( NM n + ZM p + αA + β ( N − Z ) 2 / A + γA 2 / 3 + 3 / 5(e 2 / r0 ) Z 2 A −1 / 3 ) / A
(23)

According to Ref. 2, p. 87, the interval of integration can be replaced by the limits
between O16 and Hg200 where, M / A ≅ const . Therefore

200 200
1
∫
0
f ( A, Z )dA = ∫ kdA = 1 => k = 200
0

(24)

Hence equation (17) must be divided by 200A, since f(A)/A is the energy per nucleon.
1/ 2
E   1 
2 −1
2   2 8 8 
f ( A, Z ) = 0  2 3 / 2 − 5 / 2  1 −  − 2 + 3   + A −2  (25)
200   A A   A A A  


6
Figure 1. This figure depicts the experimental data for stable nuclides (with Z≤82).

7
Figure 2. The Figure shows the Binding Energy per Nucleon obtained from eq. (22) no
Coulomb force is included. It is obtained from pure GR.

8
Figure 3. The figure displays the Least Square Fitting of equation (22) including the
Coulomb interaction. And compare it with the experimental data of the Binding Energy
per Nucleon

9
Figure 4. This figure shows all the three curves for the Binding Energy per Nucleon
displayed above.

10
Figure 5. This figure displays the maxima in the plots of the average Binding Energy per
Nucleon data.

The curve of binding energy derived by using GR is displaced from its negative values
(attractive potential) to positive values in order to compare with the experimental data.

Conclusion

This manuscript presents a curious coincidence (A= r/m) that allows the achievement of
the unification of the two forces, gravity and nuclear forces. Quantization imposes a
constraint in a nucleus, equation (19) in this paper.
What we are suggesting is that the primordial black holes in formation are nucleons.
These black holes in formation never reach the final fate of a black hole since quantum
mechanics prevents the occurrence of this event [10]. Hot superconductivity may be
explained by superconductivity states in nuclei.

Acknowledgments

My most sincere acknowledgment goes for Roger M. Pecina for his sharp suggestions
during the preparation of this manuscript.

11
References

[0] A. Einstein, The Meaning of Relativity, Princeton University Press, Centennial

Edition (1979); S. Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology, John Wiley & Sons, p. 61-63
(1972).
[2] H. Bethe and RF Bacher, Rev of Mod Phys 8 82 (1936).
[3] L. Landau A. Lifshitz, Teoria Clasica de Campos Vol. 2, Ed. Reverte S.A. (1973);
Purcell, Electricity and Magnetism, McGraw-Hill Book Company, NY (1971).
[4] N. Bohr, J.A. Wheeler, Phys. Rev. 56, 426 (1939).
[5] Von C.F. Weizsäcker, Z. Physik 96, 431 (1935).
[6] J. Foster and J.D. Nightingale, A short course in General Relativity, Longman, Inc.
NY p.107-111.
[7] J.J. Sakurai, Modern Quantum Mechanics, Addison Wesley Pub. Co., Inc. (1994).
[8] J.H.E. Mattauch, E.Thiele, A.H.Wapstra, Nucl. Phys. 67, 1 (1965); E.U. Condon, H.
Odishaw, Handbook of Physics 9-65 to 9-86; McGraw-Hill-Book Co. (1958).
[9] A. Sonzogni, "Interactive Chart of Nuclides". National Nuclear Data Center: Brook
haven National Laboratory. http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/chart/.
[10] Pecina-Cruz J.N., Quantum Mechanics and Black Holes, arXiv:physics/0510163
[11] N. Bohr, Essays 1958-1962 on atomic physics and human knowledge, John Willey &
Sons, 1963.
[12] A. Bohr, B.R. Motelson, Nuclear Structure Vol I, Amsterdam: North-Holand 1970.

12