Copyright © 2009 by Phillip E. Fraley

The spin-only model (SOM) is the replacement of all particle properties, including spin, by spin alone. Particle properties are mass, charge, magnetic moment, isospin and spin angular momentum.

Energy is “sensed” by the relative motion of spinors by way of a variation on the Compton wavelength equation:

Δv is the difference in velocity of the two spinors.

As two spinors pass each other at a distance r, they each see the apparent turning, dl/dt, of the other’s intrinsic angular momentum, ћ.

Mass is due to the direct application of the Compton wavelength equation:

As for everything in SOM, equation (2) is assumed due to a sum over many pairs of equation (1), but the known result is used mostly in discrete models or model distributions to “calibrate” total sums. Universal proton distributions can be proposed (or calculated by rules) and results derived. The idea of mass (and other energies) as a combined spin linear motion and turning is central to SOM.

Equation (1) must cause some “action” is SOM is to cause movement (forces). There is an analogy to charge and nuclear attraction that two spinors will repel each other and one spinor and one antispinor will attract each other. The human-sense words “proven”, “see”, “action”, “analogy” and “sense” itself will soon be replaced by sketches and computational rules that are specific and give numerical results.

A partic is defined to be a spinor inside a particle which travels at the internal velocity with the vector spin ћ pointing in the direction of the velocity vector. The internal velocity for a bare proton is c and the internal velocity for a proton inside a nucleon is close to c. An antipartic has its spin pointing opposite to the velocity vector.

Partics are used in SOM in the following ways:

(A) An equation of motion for partics combines equation (2) and a reaction to equation (1). A semi-random solution results and gives a distribution of positions and velocities (and therefore spins) for two partics and one antipartic in a proton model analogous to two quarks and an antiquark.

(B) Assuming a distribution of positions and velocities of partics, other data is used to fine-tune parameters.

(C) Partics from (A) or (B) are used as pilot vectors to sample the vector energy from local sources and move the center of mass; i.e., from charge or nuclear forces.

*F = m a* is a direct result of (C) in SOM.

The nuclear force in SOM is essentially proton/antiproton interactions. The mixing of pilot vectors from the position statistics of a proton and an antiproton is the main mechanism that stops the acceleration toward their centers. There is a reasonably simple computer model that shows this. The high-energy part of a neutron, the part that interacts with a proton, is essentially an antiproton. The low-energy part, suborbital positron (soe+), contains a “positive charge” and a positive magnetic moment. Modeleing the soe+ with one or three partics (with internal velocities < c) put its energy in the 25 to 50 MeV range. There is little data to independently check this, but the SMJ (stability, magnetic moment, angular momentum J) analysis for nucleons gives credence to a separate magnetic moment for the soe+. The magnetic moment of the soe+ and its variation with nuclear-core specifics can be calculated from the separation of the neutron into two parts combined with a simultaneous analysis of SMJ for atomic number < 47. At about A = 47, neutron pairs (assumed in SOM to be proton/antiproton pairs) become more prevalent for stable nucleons and interfere with simple analysis. The magnetic moment data is also too sparse to use for A > 47.

Quantum mechanics (QM) is correct. There is no doubt that QM is correct. However, the internal dynamics of stable configurations are averaged in QM (more so than in SOM) and therefore almost completely hidden. By Bell’s theorem, a strict interpretation of QM would say that the description of the internals of particles and nucleons by SOM is not possible.

The most important part of QM is the angular momentum
operator, *L*^{2} = *(l(l + 1)) ћ*^{2}, especially
the way it applies to nuclear shell descriptions (again, importantly, where much
of the universe’s energy is). SOM has the advantage in being able to calculate
the orbital part of angular momentum (F = m a). Spin is the basis of SOM and is
always present. Currently, SOM does not have rules to combine the spinors or the
way they relate to SOM’s version of magnetic field effects (internally, on the
statistics of particles). Spin plus *F = ma* plus magnetic fields is an
important part of ongoing SOM research.

Geometry and one SOM assumption; that is, a distinct part of a neutron’s magnetic moment is due to the soe+, can be combined with the α-α bond model to study a range of nucleon stability, magnetic moment and total angular momentum at once, most usefully for A < 47 as noted earlier. (The α-α bond model is specific to SOM, where α is an alpha particle.) Inferences can be made by SOM that are not possible with QM. Averaging occcurs at a finer level. Nuclear forces are specifically directed. Problems are geometrically broken into parts and modeling results due to substituting one subnucleon for another are distinct.

Not only is SOM simpler in underlying assumptions than QM, all motions
for countable problems can be, where practical, solved in real time. As with
most problems in physics, computer solutions are approximately based on what
can be “proven” from previous research and calculations that can actually be
done. An assemblage of facts based on better and better calculations from
assumptions lead to model verification, nothing more, nothing less. This
is how QM was built. SOM has the promise to be a basis for QM, with built-in
relativity (some flaws, but QM has to assume relativity) and *F = ma*
for orbital angular momentum. QM has attained the "holy grail", solutions to
angular momentum with magnetic fields in all important domains: (1) nuclear,
(2) atomic electrons and (3) molecules. Can SOM show the basis for this for
more general geometries? That is the question.

Particles that travel in a straight line, accelerating or not, are
interacting with the rest of the universe. Particles that curve are locally
interacting with and are counterbalanced by particles or antiparticles that
curve toward or away from them. In a sense, this is another way of
saying *F = ma* applies. But the idea, simple as it seems, is used in
every (countable) SOM example. Curvature is implied in examples that are
broadly countable, such as gravity and mass.

The SOM model predicts from the *F = ma* curve ideas that electronic
shell patterns are directly related to the average “clumping” (roughly,
equivalent particles) of α, carbon, neon and larger odd-α subnucleons.
This is an example of broadly countable partic and antipartic interactions that
reveal information that QM does not. Surely, some physicist has proposed this.
It could even be well known in some obscure way. I’ve not found reference
to it anywhere. Without SOM, there is no basis for it, other than
assuming *F = ma* somehow.

SOM gives basis to the intuitive feeling we all have: “clumps” of this and that exist in nuclei, electrons and nucleons really move in discrete orbits and particle properties have underlying connections. Most physics books teach physics using examples that don’t exist by QM . What can’t be measured can’t exist. Most physicists nod their heads in the affirmative to this dogma while picturing something else in their mind. What is quantum reality? SOM gives a different point of view.