Nuclear Strong Force is a Fiction

Reality Check said:
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:

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:.
Click to expand...

How did you calculate this?
Of course the neutron contains electric charges of no net charge, for you, it is 3 quarks, for me, it is a +e charge and a -e charge. You should read Feynman, cited in my paper "Electric and Magnetic Coulomb Potentials in the Deuteron":

“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”.

The bare application of Coulomb laws proves that there is an attraction between a proton and a neutron. See my paper "Electric and Magnetic Coulomb Potentials in the Deuteron".
 
Last edited:
I'm new to this thread and I see the discussion has moved on considerably, but I just wanted to point out how much I enjoyed the fact that the OP berates people for not doing proper science and then immediately demonstrates how to do proper science by quoting Alice In Wonderland. If you're not quoting children's stories then your paper will be rejected by all reputable journals.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I'm new to this thread and I see the discussion has moved on considerably, but I just wanted to point out how much I enjoyed the fact that the OP berates people for not doing proper science and then immediately demonstrates how to do proper science by quoting Alice In Wonderland. If you're not quoting children's stories then your paper will be rejected by all reputable journals.
Click to expand...

That's true!
I publish now mostly in chinese open access journals: the West is decadent, believing in the strange "strong force" that will disappear as the phlogiston, thanks to Lavoisier, and the aether, thanks to Einstein.
 
bjschaeffer said:
That's true!
I publish now mostly in chinese open access journals: the West is decadent, believing in the strange "strong force" that will disappear as the phlogiston, thanks to Lavoisier, and the aether, thanks to Einstein.
Click to expand...
"Decadent"?
 
bjschaeffer said:
How did you calculate this?
Of course the neutron contains electric charges of no net charge, for you, it is 3 quarks, for me, it is a +e charge and a -e charge. You should read Feynman, cited in my paper "Electric and Magnetic Coulomb Potentials in the Deuteron":

“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”.

The bare application of Coulomb laws proves that there is an attraction between a proton and a neutron. See my paper "Electric and Magnetic Coulomb Potentials in the Deuteron".
Click to expand...

You are suggesting an analogue of hydrogen bonding in neutrons? It seems likely that if true, this would also significantly alter chemical bonds between atoms, as charge distribution would not be as expected in a more standard model. Yet chemical bonds (afaik) show no such variation. How does your model explain this?
 
bjschaeffer said:
That's true!
I publish now mostly in chinese open access journals: the West is decadent, believing in the strange "strong force" that will disappear as the phlogiston, thanks to Lavoisier, and the aether, thanks to Einstein.
Click to expand...

I don't think Einstein is in any position to make any new discoveries.
 
Craig B said:
"Decadent"?
Click to expand...

Science is teh Evil, seperating us from nature, central heating, Air conditioning, clean water and clothes all soften us and make us weaker ensuring that we do not appriciate the wonder of God's Universe. We went wrong when we started using fire and have gone downhill ever since.\woo off
 
bjschaeffer said:
That's true!
I publish now mostly in chinese open access journals: the West is decadent, believing in the strange "strong force" that will disappear as the phlogiston, thanks to Lavoisier, and the aether, thanks to Einstein.
Click to expand...

(Just rechecked the thread to remind myself what bjschaeffer was all about)

Do your Chinese journal editors care about all the E&M mistakes you made? Like the fact that your whole theory relies on using an infinite amount of energy (which you ignore) to separate an "n+/n-" to an unstable distance (something you made up)? Or the bit where you included the ion-dipole energy twice? How about the part where you tried to predict that isotopes H4,H5,H6 etc. are stable?
 
bjschaeffer said:
How did you calculate this?
Click to expand...
I did not: neutron
An article published in 2007 featuring a model-independent analysis concluded that the neutron has a negatively charged exterior, a positively charged middle, and a negative core.[29] In a simplified classical view, the negative "skin" of the neutron assists it to be attracted to the protons with which it interacts in the nucleus. However, the main attraction between neutrons and protons is via the nuclear force, which does not involve charge.
Click to expand...
You should read what the actual measured charge distribution in neutrons is and not fantasize that a random Feynman mention supports your idea.

An imaginary, irrelevant "paper" is not a good reference either , bjschaeffer :jaw-dropp!
Is this the "paper" that has been rejected by every journal that you have sent it to probably because it is a repeat of the bad physics you have been stating here?
 
Last edited:
bjschaeffer said:
I publish now mostly in chinese open access journals: the West is decadent, believing in the strange "strong force" that will disappear as the phlogiston, thanks to Lavoisier, and the aether, thanks to Einstein.
Click to expand...
Wow - way to demonstrate just how bad your idea is, bjschaeffer! It is so bad that only open access "journals" will blindly host the PDF for you.
And the insanity of using a "decadent" West as an excuse - an East so stupid as to not know elementary electromagnetism is even worse :p.

There is nothing strange about the strong force to those who know elementary physics. A proton contains 3 positively charged quarks. Positive charges repel. Thus a proton cannot exist electromagnetically unless there is another really strong (and short range) force to hold it together. We call this force the strong force or strong interaction. The residual effects of the strong interaction outside of a nucleon is the nuclear force that holds nuclei together.
 
Reality Check said:
Wow - way to demonstrate just how bad your idea is, bjschaeffer! It is so bad that only open access "journals" will blindly host the PDF for you.
And the insanity of using a "decadent" West as an excuse - an East so stupid as to not know elementary electromagnetism is even worse :p.

There is nothing strange about the strong force to those who know elementary physics. A proton contains 3 positively charged quarks. Positive charges repel. Thus a proton cannot exist electromagnetically unless there is another really strong (and short range) force to hold it together. We call this force the strong force or strong interaction. The residual effects of the strong interaction outside of a nucleon is the nuclear force that holds nuclei together.
Click to expand...

I never found the fundamental laws and constants of the "strong force" becaming "strong interaction" and now LQCD proving its vacuity. They say only magic words and no precise laws as 1/r for the only fundamental laws known, electric and gravitational forces.
If you know the fundamental laws and constants of the strong force, let me know.
 
Reality Check said:
I did not: neutron

You should read what the actual measured charge distribution in neutrons is and not fantasize that a random Feynman mention supports your idea.

An imaginary, irrelevant "paper" is not a good reference either , bjschaeffer :jaw-dropp!
Is this the "paper" that has been rejected by every journal that you have sent it to probably because it is a repeat of the bad physics you have been stating here?
Click to expand...

I know the curve of the measured charge distribution in the neutron.
A neutron has no apparent charge when it is far from a proton or other electric charges. The charges in the neutron, two or three as you like, are separated when a proton (or an electron) approaches it, creating a dipole. Calculations (see for example Feynman) show that there is an attraction between the proton and the neutron. At equilibrium between the electric attraction and the magnetic repulsion one obtains the binding energy of the deuteron as by chance!
How do you calculate the binding energy of 2H, the simplest bound nucleus, with the "strong force"?
 
Reality Check said:
Wow - way to demonstrate just how bad your idea is, bjschaeffer! It is so bad that only open access "journals" will blindly host the PDF for you.
And the insanity of using a "decadent" West as an excuse - an East so stupid as to not know elementary electromagnetism is even worse :p.

There is nothing strange about the strong force to those who know elementary physics. A proton contains 3 positively charged quarks. Positive charges repel. Thus a proton cannot exist electromagnetically unless there is another really strong (and short range) force to hold it together. We call this force the strong force or strong interaction. The residual effects of the strong interaction outside of a nucleon is the nuclear force that holds nuclei together.
Click to expand...

I don't need the hypothesis of quarks. I apply classical physics, not legends.
The "strong force", "residual" are only words, almost nothing behind, particularly no fundamental laws and constants.
 
Zep said:
I did ask him the same question in post #2! ;) He assured me it was indeed his own.
Click to expand...

Willing to admit it, eh! Probably believes it too!!! Possibly it explains wavicles through slits also........dark mattery wibbly wobbly and all.
 
bjschaeffer said:
I don't need the hypothesis of quarks. I apply classical physics, not legends.
The "strong force", "residual" are only words, almost nothing behind, particularly no fundamental laws and constants.
Click to expand...

Classical physics knew nothing of quarks and related - has no relation to same.

YMMV but that still makes it what we like to call wrong. Do you people never give up?
 
ben m said:
(Just rechecked the thread to remind myself what bjschaeffer was all about)

Do your Chinese journal editors care about all the E&M mistakes you made? Like the fact that your whole theory relies on using an infinite amount of energy (which you ignore) to separate an "n+/n-" to an unstable distance (something you made up)? Or the bit where you included the ion-dipole energy twice? How about the part where you tried to predict that isotopes H4,H5,H6 etc. are stable?
Click to expand...

I publish in Chinese journals only if my papers are rejected in the West. The linear stability is due to the static equilibrium between electric attraction and magnetic repulsion, both ignored in nuclear physics. To calculate it, I use the exact dipole formula as you can see in my paper
(ADVANCED ELECTROMAGNETICS, Vol. 2, No. 1, September 2013
Electric and Magnetic Coulomb Potentials in the Deuteron).
The rotating stability between the proton and the neutron is insured by the spin as for a top.
The isotopes H4,H5,H6 binding energies have been predicted from 2H by neglecting the neutron binding energy. This is valid only for H and He isotopes, not for the heavier nuclides where it is more complicated.
I never said that they were stable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom