The Locking Mechanism of the Strong Interaction Force in the Hydrogen Nucleus

The Locking Mechanism of the Strong Interaction Force in the Hydrogen Nucleus ——A Special-Topic Analysis Based on the “Dual-Channel Quantum-Well Annihilation-Field Model” (the quantum-well ratio and spatial proportion of the proton and the electron, and the motion of the electron in the perinuclear vacuum and the peripheral negative-quantum-well structure) Author: Lu Weihui This paper is a special-topic sequel to the “Dual-Channel Quantum-Well Annihilation-Field Model”; the overall conventions of the model are given in the parent paper, “The Dual-Channel Quantum-Well Annihilation-Field Model: A Self-Consistent Derivation from Underlying Postulates to Macroscopic Phenomena.” Contents Abstract Chapter 1 The Problem and the Conventions Adopted 1.1 The Question This Paper Answers 1.2 The Model Conventions and Formula Numbering Adopted 1.3 The Derivation Discipline of This Paper Chapter 2 The Quantum-Well Ratio and Spatial Proportion of the Proton and the Electron 2.1 The Ratio of Characteristic Radii 2.2 The Weak-Aggregation Correction Factor ξ_e on the Electron Side 2.3 Spatial Proportion: the Proton Entity and the Characteristic Volume of the Electron Quantum Well 2.4 The Overall Space of the Hydrogen Atom: Not the Sum of r_p and r_e 2.5 Conclusions of This Chapter and Quantities to Be Calibrated Chapter 3 Why the Strong Interaction Force Cannot Leave the Proton: the Energy-Barrier Criterion 3.1 The Mechanical Quantity P_core of the Strong Interaction Force in the Model 3.2 The “Opening Energy Barrier” of the Neutral Quantum Well 3.3 The Overflow Criterion: Comparing P_core with u_N 3.4 Why It Is “Decomposing the Vacuum” Rather Than “Attracting the Vacuum” Chapter 4 The Quantity Criterion: Can the Vast Number of Neutral Quantum Wells Confine the Strong Interaction Force? 4.1 The Key Lies in the Product u_N = ε_N·n_N, Not in a Single ε_N 4.2 Short-Range Character Makes the Criterion Easier to Satisfy the Farther Out One Goes 4.3 The Quantity-Confinement Criterion: The “Toll” Cannot Be Paid Chapter 5 The Topological Criterion: the Second Lock 5.1 No Continuous Channel; Only Wall-by-Wall Decomposition 5.2 The Number of Nesting Layers Amplifies the Energy Barrier: κ_topo 5.3 Confinement by a Closed Surface: Not Even a Weak Opening 5.4 Correspondence with the Parent Paper 1.7: Not Absolutely Unopenable, but Requiring Added Energy 5.5 The Topological-Confinement Criterion Chapter 6 The Vacuum Around the Hydrogen Nucleus and the Peripheral Negative-Quantum-Well Structure: the Motion of the Electron 6.1 The Three-Layer Structure Around the Nucleus 6.2 The Motion of the Electron Within It 6.3 A Contrast: One Criterion, Two Manifestations Chapter 7 Summary of Computable Quantities and Parameters to Be Calibrated Chapter 8 Testable Predictions and Falsifiability Chapter 9 Statement of Boundaries Appendix A Comparison of Formula Numbering Between This Paper and the Parent Paper Abstract Within the postulate system of “the Dual-Channel Quantum-Well Annihilation-Field Model,” this paper addresses one specific question: why the strong interaction force inside the proton (the hydrogen nucleus) cannot escape into the vacuum outside the proton (that is, the region constituted by neutral quantum wells). The “strong interaction force” referred to here means the intranuclear short-range force corresponding, in Chapter 3 of the parent paper, to the positive-energy aggregation force inside the proton and its own short-range repulsive pressure P_core; throughout this paper, P_core is uniformly taken as its mechanical quantity, so as to avoid confusion with the “strong interaction” conventionally used in standard physics. Put another way, the question is this: it is not that it “does not want to come out,” but that it “lacks the ability”—its available pressure is insufficient to open the neutral quantum wells on its path forward. This paper renders this judgment into three testable criteria: first, the energy-barrier criterion—if the available outward-projection pressure P_core of the strong interaction force is less than the neutralization energy density of the vacuum u_N = ε_N·n_N, then it is cut off in a single step; second, the quantity criterion—the “total amount” of neutral quantum wells in the vacuum is not counted per single well, but per “number of energy barriers” along a unit path; the vast number raises the required “toll,” and the total energy of the strong interaction force is insufficient to pay it; third, the topological criterion—within the neutral quantum wells the positive and negative annihilation pairs are partitioned and isolated, and the closed neutral walls cut off every path, so that the actual energy barrier is further multiplied by a number of partition surfaces κ_topo, sealing off any detour. The three locks interlock layer by layer, jointly confining the strong interaction force within the proton. This paper also gives three supporting conclusions required by the formal paper format: the ratio of the quantum-well characteristic radii of the proton and the electron, their spatial proportion, and the overall suspension scale of the hydrogen atom; and on this basis it explains the three-layer structure of the hydrogen atom—“nucleus–perinuclear vacuum–peripheral negative-quantum-well grid”—as well as the manner in which the electron moves within this structure. It must be emphasized that the reason the electron cannot fall into the nucleus and can only move suspended outside it, and the reason the strong interaction force cannot overflow outside the nucleus, are two manifestations of the same mechanical criterion, “opening a neutral quantum well requires paying the neutralization energy ε_N.” All the derivations in this paper are built only upon the postulates of the parent paper (including Postulate VI, the neutral quantum well), the postulate-level laws, and the simplest algebraic expressions, and do not take any external ready-made formula as a derivation step; wherever numerical values appear in the text, they are inserted only as examples, with no numerical alignment and no claim of “complete agreement with observation.” For all items discussed in this paper for which this model cannot yet give a concrete quantity, they are uniformly explicitly marked “to be calibrated” and listed in the summary of Chapter 7 for subsequent revision. Keywords: strong-force locking; neutral quantum well (vacuum); neutralization energy ε_N; neutralization energy density u_N; energy-barrier criterion; quantity criterion; topological criterion κ_topo; proton-to-electron quantum-well ratio; spatial proportion; weak-aggregation correction factor ξ_e; three-layer structure of the hydrogen atom; motion of the electron; the Dual-Channel Quantum-Well Annihilation-Field Model