Electromagnetic Theory of the Nuclear Inter-

action Applied to the Hydrogen and Helium

Isotopes

Author Bernard Schaeffer

Address 7, rue de l’Ambroisie, 75012, Paris, France

E-mail bschaeffer@wanadoo.fr

Abstract

Bieler of the Rutherford laboratory imagined in 1924 a magnetic attraction

equilibrating an electrostatic repulsion between the protons. Since the disco-
very of the neutron and the magnetic moments of the nucleons proving that the
neutron contains electric charges, nobody, as far as I know, has tried to apply
electromagnetism to the nuclear interaction. As it is well known, there is an at-
traction between an electric charge and a neutral conductor. In the deuteron,
the positive charge of the neutron is repelled and the negative charge is attrac-
ted by the proton with a net attraction. The repulsion between the magnetic
moments equilibrates the electrostatically induced attraction. The calculated
value is − 1.6 M eV not too far from the experimental value (− 2.2 M eV ). The
calculated hydrogen and helium isotopes stay satisfactorily along their expe-
rimental isotopic parabolas. This is not a high precision calculation but it is
truly ab initio. No arbitrary fitting parameter is used, only universal physical
constants. The electromagnetic theory predicts the theoretical ratio between
nuclear and chemical energies as mmepα proving that the usual assumption of the
too feeble electromagnetic interaction is incorrect.

1 Introduction

The Greeks already knew the electrical properties of amber (elektron) and
the magnetic properties of magnetite. Bieler in 1924 wrote “as the angle in-
creases, the ratio of the actual scattering to what would be expected on the
inverse-square law diminishes rapidly. This suggests the existence of an at-
tractive force at short distances from the nucleus”. He made an “attempt to
explain on a magnetic hypothesis this inverse fourth-power term in the law
of force”[1]. The neutron was discovered in 1931 by his colleague, Chadwick.

1
The neutron seeming to be uncharged, the electromagnetic hypothesis for the
nuclear interaction was abandoned. The magnetic moments of the proton and
of the deuteron were discovered in 1932 by Stern and the magnetic moment of
the neutron in 1940 by Bloch. The non-zero magnetic moment of the neutron
indicates that it is not an elementary particle, as it carries no net charge but
still interacts with a magnetic field. Adding algebraically the magnetic mo-
ments of the proton and the neutron, Bloch obtained the magnetic moment of
the deuteron, in a first approximation, without taking contribution from the
orbital movement [2]. Barut suggested that “all forces of elementary particles
are already dynamically unified under electromagnetism”[3]. In spite of the
discovery of the magnetic moment and the electric charges in the neutron,
short range electric and magnetic interactions between nearby nucleons are,
except the Coulomb barrier, still ignored. We shall show, using the laws of elec-
tromagnetism, that the electromagnetic interaction is not so feeble and may
explain quantitatively the nuclear interaction. A free neutron does not have
an electric dipole moment but the dipole may be induced by the electrostatic
induction of a nearby proton in the same way as pieces of paper are attracted
by the electrostatic influence of a rubbed plastic pen. “The positive charge
attracts negative charges to the side closer to itself and leaves positive charges
on the surface of the far side. The attraction by the negative charges exceeds
the repulsion from the positive charges, there is a net attraction”[4]. There is
also a magnetic interaction between the nucleons that can be attractive or re-
pulsive depending on the position and orientation of their magnetic moments.
2
H, 3 H and 3 He are the only nuclei whose magnetic structure is known. A
macroscopic example of the deuteron is the Levitron R
where the magnetic
repulsion is equilibrated by gravity (instead of electrostatic attraction) and
stabilized by its spin[5].

2 Principle of the calculation

The permanent dipole of an isolated neutron is negligible but it may be created

by the electrostatic induction of a nearby proton. Combined with the proton,
the neutron becomes the deuteron and the induced dipole the deuteron qua-
drupole. We shall first compute the interacting force and energy between two
particles having an electrostatic charge and a magnetic moment. N -body cal-
culations being generally intractable, judicious approximations are necessary
to obtain an analytical formula of the hydrogen isotopes binding energy. Only
universal constants are used (elementary electric charge e, neutron and proton
magnetic moments µn , µp , vacuum electric permittivity 0 , magnetic permea-
bility µ0 , light speed c or, equivalently, fine structure constant α, proton mass
mp , neutron and proton Landé factors gn , gp ). The nucleus as a whole is as-
sumed to be without rotation. The nucleons are assumed to rotate around

2
Figure 1. Schematic deuteron structure. - The neutron potential is in 1/r at a short
distance and in 1/r2 at a large distance explaining the neutrality of the neutron at a
large distance from a proton. The proton potential is everywhere in 1/r. Because of
the proximity of a neutron and a proton in a nucleus, there is a dissymmetry causing
an attraction as in any electrostatic induction [4]. The magnetic moments of the
neutron and of the proton are opposite (north poles near contact) and collinear, thus
producing a repulsive potential in 1/r3 equilibrating the electrostatic attraction.

their own axis and have relative fixed positions and fixed orientations of their
magnetic moments.

2.1 Electromagnetic interaction energy in a nucleus

The sum of the electrostatic energy of particles i and j with electric charges ei
and ej , and the magnetostatic energy of magnetic dipoles µi and µj is [6,7,8] :
" #
XX ei ej X X µ0 3 (~µi • ~rij ) (~µj • ~rij )
Uem = + 3
~i • µ
µ ~j − 2
(1)
i i6=j 4π0 rij i i6=j 4πrij rij

where ~rij is the internucleon vector between the centers of the nucleons or,
if necessary, the intercharge vector. This formula shows that the Coulomb
potential is attractive or repulsive depending on the sign of the product of the
electric charges. The magnetic potential is attractive or repulsive depending
on the orientation and position of the magnetic moments of the nucleons.

2.2 Charges in the neutron

If the neutron has no charge, its electrostatic energy is zero. The proton
containing one elementary charge + e, its electrostatic energy is, for a radius

3
r = 1 fm :
e2
U (r) = = 1.44 M eV (2)
4π0 r
The proton should be heavier than the neutron by nearly the same quantity.
The sign is wrong : the proton is heavier than the neutron [4] by approxima-
tely the same quantity 1.29 M eV . A simple explanation is that the neutron
contains two opposite elementary electric charges + e and − e. Its mass ex-
ceeds that of the proton by the electrostatic energy of the proton, as observed.
We may therefore assume that the neutron contains two electric charges + e
and − e. Moreover, its positive charge will be neglected in a first approxima-
tion, as detailed below.

2.3 Some useful constants and identities

e2
- Fine structure constant α = 20 hc
= 1/137.
h̄
- Proton Compton radius RP = mp c
= 0.21 f m.

eh̄
- Nuclear magneton µN = 2mp
= 12 ecRP .

- The magnetic moments of the neutron and the proton are µn and µp . Their
corresponding Landé factors are gn = −3.826 and gp = 5.585. We have the
relations µi = g2i µN = gi 4m
eh̄
p
= gi RP ec4 where i means n or p.

- Product of vacuum dielectric permittivity and magnetic permeability 0 µ0 =

c−2 .
938 2
−αmp c2 = − 137 = − 4πe0 RP = −6.8 M eV , 4% lower than the α particle
binding energy per nucleon.

- Constants of the potential

e2
= αmp c2 RP = 1.44 M eV /f m (3)
4π0

µ0 µi µj gi gj
= αmp c2 RP3 (4)
4π 16
Using the preceding equations simplified in the approximations of neglecting
the positive electric charge of the neutron and of assuming that its positive
charge coincides with the neutron center, the general potential formula (1)
becomes  !3 
X X ei ej RP |g g
i j | R P
Uem = αmp c2 
2r
+ Cij  (5)
i i6=j e ij 16 rij

4
 Deuteron electromagnetic nuclear potential

2
Potential energy (MeV)

1
Magnetic repulsion

Equilibrium point
0
0 1 2 3 4

-1 Electrostatic attraction
-1.6 MeV
-2
0.6 fm
Distance rnp between the centers of the nucleons (fm)

Figure 2. Neutron-proton interaction potential in the deuteron. - The electroma-

gnetic potential Eem is given in MeV as a function of the distance rnp between
the centers of the neutron and the proton. When the neutron and the proton are
separated by a medium to large distance, their interaction is negligible, due to the
charge-dipole interaction potential 1/r2 . At a separation distance r between 0.6 f m
and 1 f m, at contact, the Coulomb attractive potential in 1/r is predominant over
the charge-dipole interaction in 1/r2 (neglected in a first approximation) and the
magnetic interaction in 1/r3 . In the soft core region (r smaller than 0.6 fm), the
magnetic repulsion potential in 1/r3 is predominant : it is the soft core. At dis-
tances < 0.5 f m hard core potentials with infinitely strong repulsions have been
used [9]. Although the electromagnetic potential is more than ten times smaller,
the 0.6 f m separation distance is compatible with the Paris potential [10]. This se-
paration distance smaller than the usual deuteron radius may be understood if the
deuteron nucleons are not spherical. gn and gp are the Landé factors of the neutron
and the proton, α is the fine structure constant, mp is the proton mass and RP is
the Compton radius.

~ j ) − 3 cos (~µi , ~rij ) cos (~µj , ~rij ) and ~rij is the internucleon
where Cij = cos (~µi , µ
vector. Cij is positive for magnetic repulsion and negative for magnetic attrac-
tion.

5
3 Potentials and binding energies of the hydrogen isotopes

3.1 Deuteron potential energy

The proton contains a positive charge + e. The neutron contains electric

charges globally neutral, without any dipole when isolated from a proton. The
electric field of the proton, acting on a neighboring neutron, separates the
neutron charges by electrostatic induction, creating an induced electric dipole
(figure 1). The negative charge of the neutron is attracted by the proton. The
positive charge of the neutron is repelled. Therefore, according to the Coulomb
law, the attractive force is stronger than the repulsive force. The induced elec-
tric dipole, combined with the proton electric charge, becomes the quadrupole
of the deuteron. Its moment is Q = 0.288 fm2 = (0.54 fm)2 . This means that
the distance between the electric charges is of the order of the nucleon size.
“Unfortunately, the multipole expansion is not applicable when the molecules
are separated by distances comparable to the molecular dimensions”[11,12].
This is also true for the atomic nucleus : the far-field or dipole approximation
is not applicable when the distance between the electrical charges is compa-
rable to the nucleon size. This is justified by the Coulomb law. Indeed the 1/r
variation of the electrostatic potential decreases with the distance r and the
attraction by the proton is larger than the repulsion. The positive charge of
the neutron, being at a distance from the center of the proton between two and
three times the radius of a nucleon, may be neglected in a first approximation
with an error estimated to 30 % [13]. Therefore, provisionally, only the posi-
tive charge of the neutron will be taken into account. The magnetic moment
of the deuteron is close to the algebraic sum of the proton and neutron ma-
gnetic moments [2,14] meaning that the magnetic moments are opposite. By
reason of symmetry, the magnetic moments have to be both collinear with the
rotation axis of the deuteron. There is therefore a magnetic repulsion between
the proton and the neutron. Magnetic monopoles having never been obser-
ved, the distance between the magnetic charges is unknown. We may thus
use the far field approximation for the magnetic interaction between magne-
tic dipoles. The electromagnetic nuclear potential is, according to formula (5)
~ p ) − 3 cos (~µn , ~rnp ) cos (~µp , ~rnp ) = −1 − 3 × 1 × (−1) = 2,
where Cnp = cos (~µn , µ
the magnetic moments being collinear and opposite.

 !3 
2H RP |gn gp | RP
Uem (rnp ) = αmp c2 − +  (6)
rnp 8 rnp

6
The neutron-proton interaction potential energy is, numerically :
 !2 
2H 1, 44  0.34
Uem (rnp ) = − 1−  M eV (7)
rnp rnp

where rnp is in fm. It may be noticed that, when rnp is large, formula (7) be-
comes formula (2). The calculated electromagnetic potential between a neu-
tron and a proton in the deuteron is shown on figure 2.

3.2 Deuteron binding energy

The binding energy is the potential at equilibrium. The derivative of the po-
tential energy relative to the radius rnp has to be a zero force at equilibrium :

dU 2H 3|gn gp | RP3
" #
RP
F = − em = − αmp c2 − 2 + 4
=0 (8)
drnp rnp 8 rnp

The distance between the centers of the neutron and the proton at equilibrium
is s
3|gn gp |
rnp = RP = 0.6f m (9)
8
three times smaller than what is usually assumed although compatible with
the positions of the Paris potential minimums [10].

Replacing rnp in the potential, the binding energy writes :

s
2H 2 8 2
Bem = − αmp c × = −1.6 M eV (10)
3|gn gp | 3

Numerically, the binding energy per nucleon is to be divided by A = 2 :

s
2H 938 8 2
Bem /A =− × = −0.8 M eV (11)
2 × 137 3 × 3, 8 × 5, 6 3

The binding energy per nucleon of the deuteron, −0.8 M eV , is 30 % weaker

than the experimental value, −1.1 M eV . The binding energy of the deuteron
may thus be predicted electromagnetically at least approximately but without
fitting. This calculation uses only classical electrostatics, magnetostatics and
universal constants.

7
Figure 3. Magnetic moments of A=3 isotopes. − According to formula (5).the
magnetic moments have to be repulsive and thus opposite in order to equilibrate
the electrostatic attraction. The magnetic moment of 3 H being nearly equal the
proton magnetic moment, the neutron magnetic moments are horizontal in a first
approximation and therefore their scalar product is negligible. The projection of the
neutron magnetic moment the np line is also zero. It is the same for 3 He, the np
magnetic interactions are also zero.
3.3 Triton

The triton 3 H having only one proton, the pp interaction is inexistent. Accor-
ding to the general formula (5), the electromagnetic interaction potential of
the two np bonds in 3 H is

 !3 
np RP |gn gp | RP
Uem (rnp ) = αmp c2 × 2 − + Cnp  (12)
rnp 16 rnp
~ p ) − 3 cos (~µn , ~rnp ) cos (~µp , ~rnp ) = 0, the magnetic mo-
where Cnp = cos (~µn , µ
ment of the proton being perpendicular to those of the neutrons and also
to the vector radius ~rnp . The magnetic interaction np being thus null, there
remains only the neutron-proton attractive electrostatic potential :

np 2RP
Uem (rnp ) = −αmp c2 (13)
rnp

The electrostatic interaction potential of the nn bond is repulsive by reason

of symmetry. The intensity of the nn electrostatic interaction being difficult
to evaluate, let us assume that it is the same as for a unit elementary charge.
The magnetic moments of the neutrons being collinear and opposite, their
interaction is also repulsive by reason of symmetry. We have thus Cnn =
~ n )−3 cos (~µn , ~rnn ) cos (~µn , ~rnn ) = −1−3×1×(−1) = 2. The neutron-
cos (~µn , µ
neutron distance rnn being twice rnp , the electromagnetic interaction between
the neutrons is :

g 2 RP3
" #
RP
nn
Uem (rnn ) = αmp c 2
+ n ×2 (14)
(2rnp ) 16 (2rnp )3

8
 nn
Adding the neutron-neutron and neutron-proton potentials, Uem (rnn ) and
np 3
Uem (rnp ), the interacting electromagnetic potential of the H nucleus be-
comes :

 !3 
RP3
2
3RP gn

3H
Uem (rnp ) = αmp c2 − +  (15)
2rnp 8 rnp

At equilibrium, obtained by derivation, as for the deuteron, the internucleon

distance is

gn
rnp = RP √ = 0.14f m (16)
4 2

The total binding energy of the triton is therefore :

√
3H 4 2
Bem (rnp ) = − αmp c2 = −10 M eV (17)
gn

The binding energy per nucleon is −3.3 M eV , 12 % stronger than the expe-
3H
rimental value Bem /A = −2.8 M eV .

3.4 Hydrogen isotopes with N > 2

The binding energies of the heavier hydrogen isotopes (N > 2) are obtained
simply by dividing the total binding energy of the isotope having the maximum
binding energy, e.g. 3 H by its atomic mass. Figure 4 shows the variation of the
calculated and measured binding energies of the hydrogen isotopes for N = 0
to 6. The results don’t differ much from those obtained by assuming a kind of
halo structure [15]. It may be explained by a compensation of the attractive
potential between neutrons and protons and the repulsive potential between
the neutrons.

4 Potentials and binding energies of the helium isotopes

4.1 Helion

The helion nucleus differs from the triton nucleus by changing the neutrons
into protons and vice-versa, the proton into a neutron. Therefore the same

9
formula as for the helion may be used but where n and p are switched round :
√
3He 4 2
Bem (rnp ) = − αmp c2 = −6.9 M eV (18)
gp

The binding energy per nucleon is thus −2.3 M eV , slightly weaker than the
experimental value, −2.6 M eV and also than the triton, which is explained
by the larger magnetic moment of the proton and thus a stronger magnetic
repulsion.

4.2 α particle

The binding energy per nucleon of the nuclei is equal to αmp c2 multiplied by
a numerical coefficient varying between 0.15 and 1.5. This coefficient is, expe-
rimentally 1.04 for 4 He. Unfortunately, it was not yet possible to obtain it by
calculation as for the other H and He isotopes. Several structures, essentially
tetrahedron and square with magnetic orientations giving a zero resultant
magnetic moment, were tried but none gave the correct result. Other possible
structures should be investigated but more information about the 4 He struc-
ture is necessary, particularly about the orientation of the magnetic moments
4He
in the nucleus. Using the formula Bem /A = −αmp c2 , we obtain a binding
energy of 4 He 4 % lower than the experimental value 7.07M eV . It is therefore
not unreasonable to use provisionally the formula αmc2 for the binding energy
of the α particle although it was not rigorously calculated.

4.3 Helium isotopes with N > 2

The binding energies of the heavier helium isotopes (N > 2) is obtained simi-
larly to those of the hydrogen isotopes, simply by dividing the total binding
energy of the isotope having the maximum binding energy, e.g. 4 He by its
atomic mass. The result is shown on figure 4.

5 Nuclear and chemical energies

The energy needed to separate an electron from a proton is given by the

Rydberg constant
1
Ry = α2 me c2 = 13.6eV (19)
2

10
 Hydrogen & helium isotopes calculated and measured

He measured H measured He calculated H calculated

7 4He
!mc2 = 6.8 MeV

6
Binding energy per nucleon B/A (MeV)

5He
5 6He

4 7He
8He

9He
3 10He
3H
3He

4H 5H
1 2H
6H
7H

0 10H
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Neutron number N

Figure 4. Calculated and experimental binding energies of the hydrogen and helium
isotopes. − The isotopic parabolas shown on the figure have been rarely considered.
Nuclides with one and two neutrons have been calculated individually except for
4 He where B/A is assumed to be αm c2 . Nuclides with more than two neutrons have
p
been calculated from the maximum binding energy by assuming a zero separation
energy for the extra neutrons. Therefore B is independent of the neutron number
N and B/A decreases in proportion. The experimental and the theoretical isotopic
parabolas coincide approximately. The binding energies, calculated from nuclear
masses [17,18], are taken positive on the graph.

11
Comparing with formula (10) giving the separation energy of a neutron from a
proton shows that these two formulas look similar but they differ by two points.
First, the fine structure constant α is to the second power for the hydrogen
atom and to the first power for the deuteron. Second, the electron mass in the
hydrogen atom is replaced by a nucleon mass in the heavy hydrogen nucleus.
Third, the numerical coefficient is 0.23 for the heavy hydrogen nucleus instead
of 0.5 for the hydrogen atom. With a coefficient of 1.04, we obtain almost
exactly the α particle binding energy per nucleon :

αmp c2 = 7 M eV (20)

Comparing formulas (19) and (20), the nuclear energy is around mmepα = 1, 836×
137 = 250, 000 times more concentrated than the chemical energy.

6 Conclusions

The following results have been obtained by applying the electromagnetic

theory to the atomic nucleus :

- The hypothesis that the proton contains one charge + e and the neutron
two, + e and − e, explaining its larger weight, is used to obtain the binding
energies. The neutron plus charge is neglected in a first approximation.

- The electrostatic attraction induced by a nearby proton on a neutron explains

quantitatively the strong force.

- The repulsion between the magnetic moments of the nucleons explains the
repulsive core.

- The electromagnetic theory leads to a constant resembling that of Rydberg.

- The binding energy of the α particle is given by the formula −αmc2 , 4 %

weaker than the experimental value, unfortunately still without complete theo-
retical derivation.

- The calculated hydrogen and helium isotopes binding energies agree satis-
factorily with their experimental isotopic parabolas (figure 4).

12
 mp
- The ratio between nuclear and chemical energies is discovered to be me α
.

Although the precision of the model should be refined, the electromagnetic

nature of the nuclear interaction seems to be proved. A better knowledge of
the magnetic structure of the nuclei is necessary, particularly for 4 He whose
magnetic moment, usually assumed to be zero, is unavailable in nuclear tables
[19]. No search for a non-zero value of the 4 He magnetic moment seems to
exist as for the neutron electric dipole moment. The next challenge will be
to replace the liquid drop model of the Bethe-Weizsäcker semi-empirical mass
formula, inefficient for light nuclides[16], by an entirely electromagnetic and
coherent model that may open a new way of thinking nuclear physics.

Références

[1] E.S. Bieler, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 105 (1924) 434-450.

[2] F. Bloch, Annales de l’I.P.H.P. 8 (1938) 63-78 .
[3] A.O. Barut, Annalen der Physik 1-2 (1986) 498 .
[4] R. Feynman, R. B. Leighton, M. Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics 2,
Pearson/Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass, 2006.
[5] M.V. Berry, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 452 (1996) 1207-1220.
[6] J.C. Maxwell, A treatise on electricity and magnetism, Vol.2, Oxford University
Press, 1998.
[7] G.E. Owen, Introduction to Electromagnetic Theory, Courier Dover
Publications, Oxford , 2003.
[8] K. Yosida, Theory of magnetism, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1996.
[9] A. Vértes, S. Nagy, Z. Klencsár, R.G. Lovas, Handbook of nuclear chemistry :
Basics of nuclear science, Vol.1, Springer, Dordrecht, 2003.
[10] M. Lacombe et al., Phys. Rev., C21 (1980) 861.
[11] A.R. Leach, Molecular modelling : principles and applications, Pearson
Education, 2001.
[12] P.O. Lõwdin, Advances in Quantum Chemistry, Volume 7, Academic Press,
New York, 1973
[13] B. Schaeffer, Frontiers of Fundamental Physics, 6-9 July 2010, Paris, France (to
be published).
[14] V.F. Weisskopf, J.M. Blatt, Theoretical Nuclear Physics, Courier Dover
Publications, 1991.
[15] B. Schaeffer, Journal of Fusion Energy (Published online 29 January 2011).

13
[16] P. Roy Chowdhury, C. Samanta, D.N. Basu, Modern Physics Letters A, Volume
20 (2005) 1605-1618.
[17] G. Audi et al., Nuclear Physics A 729 (2003) 337-676.
[18] D. Cortina-Gil1, W. Mittig, Europhysics News 41 (2010) 23-26.
[19] D. R. Lide, CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 85th Ed, CRC Press,
Boca Raton, 2004.

14