[video]

The question and answer session following the keynote address.

(Audio has been boosted in places to make quesions clearer.)

Detailed study of the characteristics of the so-called nucleus of the atom has not been carried out by Larson. Therefore we have undertaken this much needed investigation and been reporting our results.^[1-3]

It has been our experience that such investigation hardly ever proceeds in a strictly serial manner. Rather, it is more akin to the process of fitting the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle together. Nascent understanding gradually builds up and evolves from various seemingly diverse starting points, the concepts on each line of thinking modifying the ones on other lines, and in turn themselves getting modified by the latter. Eventually a nexus of coherent structure ensues. The thoughts presented in this article too constitute such a preliminary group of ideas that might serve to crystallize some of the earlier concepts enunciated on the topic of the so-called atomic nucleus.

Theoretical findings of the Reciprocal System indicate that the neutron exists in two forms: as the massless type, M ½-½-0, and as the compound type, M 1-1-(1) == C (½)-(½)-1. As matters now stand, while the massless neutron is unobserved, the compound neutron is identified as the observed neutron. Larson¹ shows how the mass of the compound neutron, calculated from the Reciprocal System, agrees with the observed value. This paper attempts to arrive at the compound neutron’s lifetime on the basis of the same theoretical system and thus add a further element of validation to the identification of the compound neutron.

Introduction

Of all the forms of lightning, ball lightning is, beyond any doubt, the most rare and mysterious. Even though it was discussed by Aristotle in the 4^th century B.C. in his work on meterology¹, and has, in the intervening years been reported by thousands of reliable observers, it has only recently gained acceptance as a real phenomenon by the majority of scientific authorities. A survey conducted at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in 1960 by J. Rand McNally, Jr. asked l5,923 employees if they had witnessed ball lightning, resulting in 515 positive replies.² Sufficient evidence has now been accumulated to form a fairly compelling case for the existence of ball lightning, although its characteristics are such that no theory thus far submitted provides a satisfactory explanation.