Anomalous Rutherford Scattering Solved Magnetically

Abstract

After one century of nuclear physics, the anomalous Rutherford scattering remains a puzzle: its underlying fundamental laws are still missing. The only presently recognized electromagnetic interaction in a nucleus is the so-called Coulomb electric force, in 1/r, only positive thus repulsive in official nuclear physics, explaining the Rutherford scattering at low kinetic energy of the impacting alpha particles. At high kinetic energy the Rutherford scattering formula doesn't work, thus called "anomalous scattering". I have discovered that, to solve the problem, it needs only to replace, at high kinetic energy, the Coulomb repulsive electric potential in 1/r, by the also repulsive magnetic Poisson potential in 1/r 3. In log-log coordinates, one observes two straight lines of slopes, respectively −2 and −6. They correspond with the −1 and −3 exponents of the only repulsive electric and magnetic interactions, multiplied by 2 due to the cross-sections. Both Rutherford (normal and anomalous) scattering have been calculated electromagnetically. No attractive force needed.

Electromagnetic Theory of the Nuclear Interaction

“…The deuteron 2 H has one neutron-proton bond, as shown onFigure 1, thus a total binding energy of −2.2 MeV 4. He has 4 deuteron bonds, inclined at 60˚, thus multiplying twice by 4 the total 2 H binding energy, giving an approximate total binding energy of 2.24 4 35 MeV − × × = − somewhat larger than the experimental value, −28 MeV.…”

“…The magnetic interactions between neutrons and between protons are assumed to be repulsive. The structure of 4 He is shown on Figure 3. The graphical solution ( Figure 2) gives, for the α particle, a binding energy per nucleon of −7.6 MeV, stronger than the experimental value, −7.07 MeV, by 10 per cent, due probably to the neglect, in a first approximation of the magnetic repulsion between neutrons and between protons.…”

“…In 1924, Bieler [3] made an unsuccessful attempt to explain with an attractive magnetic inverse fourth-power term in the law of force, unfortunately with the wrong sign. Indeed, it needs only to reuse the Rutherford formula where −2 electric is replaced by −6 magnetic [4].…”

“…The binding energies per nucleon of 2 H and4 He are calculated with Coulomb, electric, and Poisson, magnetic, fundamental laws, without phenomenological parameters. It can be seen that the so-called Coulomb singularity is not a real problem: it just need to replace the minimum by a horizontal inflection point, the radius of the elementary electric charges being unknown, assumed to be point-like.…”

“…It can be seen that the so-called Coulomb singularity is not a real problem: it just need to replace the minimum by a horizontal inflection point, the radius of the elementary electric charges being unknown, assumed to be point-like. The binding energy is calculated graphically as −1.2 for an experimental value of −1.1 for 2 H and −7.6 MeV for an experimental value of −7.1 MeV for4 He.…”