# Magnetic binding – atomic structures, isotope reaction energies, atomic fuels and hyper strong materials

FermiLab: How do magnets work? at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7ndBIL402Q

When two electrons or two protons are compressed together, the 1/r^3 magnetic energy (positive when magnetic dipoles attract) and the 1/r Coulomb energy (negative when the electric charges repel) can reach a minimum when they are at nuclear distances. Two electrons (Cooper pairs) or two protons (occurs inside neutron stars and perhaps near black holes) can also bind magnetically. The proton and neutron can bind stably by positive magnetic dipole energy (attractive) , positive electric energy (attractive) and negative rotation and vibrations (repulsive or tending to separate them) . It is simple to look up the neutron binding energy and solve for valid configurations and spectrum. Likewise it is simple to solve for proton pairing energy in the context of real nuclear isotopes and reactions. Deuteron, Triton, and many isotopes with magnetic moments. The alpha particle (helium) excited states have multiple configurations and those can be given precise dynamic magnetic interaction energies, orientations and field shapes. The experiments can check it and solved for configurations.

It is also possible to bind particles and antiparticle with magnetic dipole (and higher magnetic moments) energy contributions. A proton and antiproton: positive magnetic dipole binding energy, positive Coulomb binding energy, negative rotational binding energy. I am fairly certain there is no singularity if there is not enough rotational energy to reach a bound state. The proton – antiproton (I think) can be massless because the binding energy is gravitationally invisible. Check. The binding energy in mass terms does not contribute to inertia or gravitational mass. A bound particle antiparticle pair can have zero mass with the right rotational and vibrational states. I think that is likely what the neutrinos might be. And the very very very specific orientation and timing required for resonant interactions, is why the cross-section is small. But cross section has a larger meaning of “probability or reaction” than just “probability of collision”. It you want to bind two protons, they have narrow orientation (in 3d and time) constraints.

If you take an electron and positron and bind them magnetically, they will have a spectrum that can be estimated by “magnetic dipole approximation” which is very close to the non-linear Schrodinger solutions (which can be thought of as solitons or particles). More like molecules than simple particles. The simplicity for screening reactions for economic value or “chemistry at atomic and nuclear energies” is that classical analytical models can be used for getting close enough for the more expensive exact models to converge. I learned that lesson when I was working with Steve Klosko on using measured satellite orbits to calibrate the earth gravitational potential field model. I would find a rough orbit, then he would run the full model and it would most often converge. But if he took the full model and guessed, it would be too expensive or simply not be a good staring point. I think the “full model for nuclear magnetic binding” will adjust for relativistic effects at high particle speeds and intense fields. So the “nonlinear” part of the nonlinear Schrodinger model is likely largely relativistic in nature, and very dependent on the experimental noise spectrum.

I wrote to Emilio Segre (antiproton) back about the end of 1980 (his letter back to me is Jan 1981). I was seeking encouragement to spend more time on modeling the orbits and forces on electrons and positrons (positronium), using the precise measurements to test. He basically said, “go ahead and try to do a good job”. My take was “you have not said anything stupid, it is possible, just keep at it.”

Here are some distances for different reactions when the magnetic contribution is 2 MeV. To give a sense of the scale. I am checking all the reaction energies at NUDAT 3 for all ~3500 isotopes. For a given distance PP is stronger then NP, is stronger than NN magnetic bonding energies. That has consequences for stable isotopic internal structure, and indirectly on electron and magnetic binding of partially and fully stripped (of electrons) reactions. I have been looking for “atomic fuels and materials” where the macroscopic bond energy density is KeV and MeV per pair rather than just eV ‘chemical’ bonds. A rocket fuel would be correspondingly smaller. A 10 KeV material would be about 1000 time smaller than chemical combustion fuels like StarShip. 100 meters of fuel down to 10 cm?

Variable Radius Unit Note

r_PP_2MeV 0.43585 fm PP Magnetic Binding Energy

r_NN_2MeV 0.33868 fm NN Magnetic Binding Energy

r_NP_2MeV 0.38420 fm NP Magnetic Binding Energy

r_ee_2MeV 32.97970 fm ee Magnetic Binding Energy

r_dd_2MeV 0.19835 fm dd Magnetic Binding Energy

r_HeHe_2MeV 0.36355 fm HeHe Magnetic Binding Energy

r_MuMu_2MeV 0.94318 fm MuMu Magnetic Binding Energy

r_TT_2MeV 0.45500 fm TT Magnetic Binding Energy

r_eP_2MeV 1.45500 fm eP Magnetic Binding Energy

There is a lot of work to find the proper geometries. But the order of magnitudes and possible geometries are a good start. I am using single bonds, but many bonds and types are possible and likely contribute. First you get close, then use more and more precise models. Measure and calibrate to 32 digit accuracy or it won’t converge.

Boron 11 Neutron Separation Energy 11454221 eV r_B11->B10+N 0.185514604 fm

Boron 12 Neutron Separation Energy 3369600 eV r_B12->B11+N 0.318816993 fm

(There are end to end magnets, as well as side by side, and many dynamic interactions in 3D and time. End to end allows “strings of particles. And those seem to be operative at gluon energies too. But magnetic chains of a few particles (6 electrons binding?) or 6 neutrons binding in a ring. Those can be solved and likely tested. It is easy “chemistry with KeV and MeV bonds and energies”. Then you do the details, measure and test and calibrate.)

Richard Collins, The Internet Foundation