Nuclear Strong Force is a Fiction

bjschaeffer said:
You are very intelligent people!
Click to expand...

That isn't really the issue. Over the last century, hundreds of thousands of research papers have been written on the standard model of particle physics, and more generally on quantum mechanics. The reason those papers were based on quantum mechanics is the complete and total failure of classical physics to describe atomic physics, nuclear physics, low-light optics, absorption and trasmission lines, modern electronics, modern chemistry, and even some elements of biology.

Surely, at least a few of the people writing those papers were intelligent and knowledgeable enough to reproduce the few lines of trivial algebra you claim shows that electromagnetism is capable of describing nucleons... if it were correct, that is?
 
bjschaeffer said:
You are very intelligent people!
Click to expand...

Unfortunately bjschaeffer it doesn’t take a very intelligent person to understand that given the polarization of your Neutron is a fundamental aspect of your assertions.

You actually asking the question…

bjschaeffer said:
What do you mean by polarization energy?
Click to expand...

bodes well for neither you nor your assertions.
 
sol invictus said:
That isn't really the issue. Over the last century, hundreds of thousands of research papers have been written on the standard model of particle physics, and more generally on quantum mechanics. The reason those papers were based on quantum mechanics is the complete and total failure of classical physics to describe atomic physics, nuclear physics, low-light optics, absorption and trasmission lines, modern electronics, modern chemistry, and even some elements of biology.

Surely, at least a few of the people writing those papers were intelligent and knowledgeable enough to reproduce the few lines of trivial algebra you claim shows that electromagnetism is capable of describing nucleons... if it were correct, that is?
Click to expand...

The complete and total failure of the standard model is that it is unable to caculate a single nucleus. "Description" is only qualitative. Electromagnetism not only describes it calculates
 
bjschaeffer said:
The complete and total failure of the standard model is that it is unable to caculate a single nucleus. "Description" is only qualitative. Electromagnetism not only describes it calculates
Click to expand...

"Electromagnetism calculates" is why we're so easily able to show that your theory is wrong.

Let me lay it out for you:

Things the Standard Model claims to calculate: thousands and thousands
Fraction of those things that agree with experiment: 100%

Things BJSchaeffer claims to calculate: 1
Things BJSchaeffer made basic intro-E&M errors in calculating: 1
Fraction of BJSchaeffer's theory that agrees with experiments: 0%
 
BJSchaeffer, I want to focus on *your* model for the time being. It doesn't sound like you have much to say about QCD other than that you don't like it.

I missed this quote of yours before because (for the Nth time) you mixed it into a quote of my text.

bjschaeffer said:
How do you know that the energy is very, very large?
This is only an assumption, there is no experimental proof of it. The potential between a positive charge and a dipole is attractive. It seems that you ignore electrostatics. Feynman says:
“When you bring a positive charge up to a conducting sphere, the positive charge attracts negative charges to the side closer to itself and leaves positive charges on the surface of the far side”
Click to expand...

You're asking how I know that the n+ n- take a "large" energy, rather than a "small" energy, to separate. This is quite easy to understand.

Look at the system Feynman is talking about. His initial state---the ground state of a conducting sphere---is a large distribution of + charges (nuclei) and a distribution of (-) charges (electrons). The initial state is not two point charges right on top of one another. You should ask, because it's a good question: why not? What prevents a metal sphere from collapsing? Why don't the + charges pair up with the - charges (making neutral pointlike objects), why don't the neutral pointlike objects attract each other, why doesn't the whole sphere crush itself into an electron-sized point? The answer is quantum mechanics. A metal sphere can't crush itself into a point because quantum mechanical effects are is holding up the electrons, and the protons, in this spatially-extended cloud.

Anyway: the metal sphere is a system for which we know the initial charge distribution. (Two coincident, extended spheres of + and -.) We apply the laws of E&M and that tells us how they respond to a nearby charge. (The charges separate a finite amount.)

Likewise: the Schaeffer-neutron is a system for which we know the initial charge distribution. (Two point charges at a=0. What else is it going to be? You've ignored quantum mechanics and non-electrostatic forces.) We apply the laws of E&M and that tells us how the Schaeffer-neutron responds to a nearby charge. (Answer: it's magnetically repelled and remains unpolarized.)
 
ben m said:
"Electromagnetism calculates" is why we're so easily able to show that your theory is wrong.

Let me lay it out for you:

Things the Standard Model claims to calculate: thousands and thousands
Fraction of those things that agree with experiment: 100%

Things BJSchaeffer claims to calculate: 1
Things BJSchaeffer made basic intro-E&M errors in calculating: 1
Fraction of BJSchaeffer's theory that agrees with experiments: 0%
Click to expand...

All what you say is dream
 
ben m said:
BJSchaeffer, I want to focus on *your* model for the time being. It doesn't sound like you have much to say about QCD other than that you don't like it.

I missed this quote of yours before because (for the Nth time) you mixed it into a quote of my text.



You're asking how I know that the n+ n- take a "large" energy, rather than a "small" energy, to separate. This is quite easy to understand.

Look at the system Feynman is talking about. His initial state---the ground state of a conducting sphere---is a large distribution of + charges (nuclei) and a distribution of (-) charges (electrons). The initial state is not two point charges right on top of one another. You should ask, because it's a good question: why not? What prevents a metal sphere from collapsing? Why don't the + charges pair up with the - charges (making neutral pointlike objects), why don't the neutral pointlike objects attract each other, why doesn't the whole sphere crush itself into an electron-sized point? The answer is quantum mechanics. A metal sphere can't crush itself into a point because quantum mechanical effects are is holding up the electrons, and the protons, in this spatially-extended cloud.

Anyway: the metal sphere is a system for which we know the initial charge distribution. (Two coincident, extended spheres of + and -.) We apply the laws of E&M and that tells us how they respond to a nearby charge. (The charges separate a finite amount.)

Likewise: the Schaeffer-neutron is a system for which we know the initial charge distribution. (Two point charges at a=0. What else is it going to be? You've ignored quantum mechanics and non-electrostatic forces.) We apply the laws of E&M and that tells us how the Schaeffer-neutron responds to a nearby charge. (Answer: it's magnetically repelled and remains unpolarized.)
Click to expand...

BLA BLA BLA

Read my new paper downloadable here:
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=24389
 
bjschaeffer said:
All what you say is dream
Click to expand...

bjschaeffer said:
BLA BLA BLA

Read my new paper downloadable here:
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=24389
Click to expand...

So, if there are these allged two charges in a neutron, what distance is that between them bjschaeffer?

What keeps that disatnce from going to zero, what happens when they do go to zero?
What amount of force is required to create a seperation greater than zero and what provides that force?
 
Reality Check said:
Wow that is a lot of ignorance!

As a New Zealander, I just have to point out that my fellow Kiwi Ernest Rutherford was instrumental in showing that atoms have a nucleus and that electrons exist outside of the nucleus.
The nucleus is a "central massive body which can act as a force center"
  1. It is in the middle of the atom (central!)
  2. It is massive (a proton is 1824 times heavier than an electron).
  3. It acts as a force center (protons are positive, electrons are negative and opposite charges attract!)
Neutrons are actually neutral because they are measured to be neutral. They do not contain "electric charges" as if there were 2 oppositely charged particles in then. Neutrons are neutral because they contain 3 quarks whose charges add up to zero.
Click to expand...
A proton attracts a neutron: the negative charge of the neutron is attracted and the positive charge repulsed farther away. Thus, according to Coulomb's law, the attraction is larger than the repulsion, q.e.d.
 
Dancing David said:
So, if there are these alleged two charges in a neutron, what distance is that between them bjschaeffer?

What keeps that distance from going to zero, what happens when they do go to zero?
What amount of force is required to create a separation greater than zero and what provides that force?
Click to expand...

Um I note you still have resolved your own contradiction yet.
 
bjschaeffer said:
A proton attracts a neutron: the negative charge of the neutron is attracted and the positive charge repulsed farther away. Thus, according to Coulomb's law, the attraction is larger than the repulsion, q.e.d.
Click to expand...

That would have been an OK starter hypothesis in 1932. It would have been rejected a few weeks later because it doesn't work.

The electrostatic attraction between a neutral dimer and a charged particle, as you propose, is called an "ion-dipole" or "ion-induced dipole" force. It is not a piece of magic that can explain an neutral-particle interaction you ever find. It's a specific physical process, it's easily understood (which is why you like it, right?) and consequently it's easy to show that it does not agree with what we know about neutrons, protons, proton-neutron forces, etc..
 
bjschaeffer said:
A proton attracts a neutron: the negative charge of the neutron is attracted and the positive charge repulsed farther away. Thus, according to Coulomb's law, the attraction is larger than the repulsion, q.e.d.
Click to expand...
We could just say that a neutron is neutral and so you are wrong, bjschaeffer, QED :D.

But the real problem is the lack of calculations: "Thus, according to Coulomb's law, the attraction is smaller than the repulsion" is as valid a conclusion as yours. As ben m said back in November 2012:
ben m said:
Things the Standard Model claims to calculate: thousands and thousands
Fraction of those things that agree with experiment: 100%

Things BJSchaeffer claims to calculate: 1
Things BJSchaeffer made basic intro-E&M errors in calculating: 1
Fraction of BJSchaeffer's theory that agrees with experiments: 0%
Click to expand...


The reality you are ignoring, bjschaeffer:
The neutron is a composite particle made up of 1 up quark (+2/3 e) and 2 down quarks (-1/3 e each). The measured charge distribution as of 2007 is "a negatively charged exterior, a positively charged middle, and a negative core".
So this mental picture of the charges inside a neutron is just wrong, bjschaeffer :p:.
 
aggle-rithm said:
Wait.

Is spin something a proton does, or is it a property of the particle?

To me it seems a little like asking, "Why does the wharf rat?"
Click to expand...
I like "a fly can't bird but a bird can fly"
from ... Winnie the Pooh.
 
aggle-rithm said:
Is spin something a proton does, or is it a property of the particle?
Click to expand...

The second one.

Does rotating a proton alter its magnetic field in the non-rotating frame though? I'm not sure, but I would guess no, that apart from intrinsic spin a proton acts like a spherically symmetric charge.
 
aggle-rithm said:
Is spin something a proton does, or is it a property of the particle?
Click to expand...
Spin is a property of all particles. Protons are composite particles so it expected that their spin is formed from the spins of their quarks. But it does not work out that way. There are other contributions. The article is about one possible contribution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom